Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Recovery of CENVAT Credit erroneously refunded alongwith interest - penalty for ineligible availment of CENVAT Credit - The High Court emphasized that the refund and interest were paid to the petitioner based on these orders, and there was no basis for recovery. - The High Court noted that the Show Cause Notice erroneously mentioned the filing of an SLP, although it was yet to be filed. It held that the Revenue cannot unilaterally declare the refund as erroneous, especially after being unsuccessful in previous legal proceedings. - The High Court acknowledged the Revenue's right to approach the Supreme Court but emphasized that until the Revenue succeeds there or obtains interim orders, the refund cannot be deemed erroneous.
Recovery of CENVAT Credit erroneously refunded alongwith interest - penalty for ineligible availment of CENVAT Credit - The High Court emphasized that the refund and interest were paid to the petitioner based on these orders, and there was no basis for recovery. - The High Court noted that the Show Cause Notice erroneously mentioned the filing of an SLP, although it was yet to be filed. It held that the Revenue cannot unilaterally declare the refund as erroneous, especially after being unsuccessful in previous legal proceedings. - The High Court acknowledged the Revenue's right to approach the Supreme Court but emphasized that until the Revenue succeeds there or obtains interim orders, the refund cannot be deemed erroneous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.