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...
Recovery of erroneous refund - amount paid by the appellant’s Chennai Unit towards the pre-deposit in connection with an appeal filed arising out of order in Tuticorin Central Excise Division with a different Registration Number - The Appellate Tribunal finds that the payment made by the appellant towards pre-deposit for filing the appeal should indeed be considered a pre-deposit and not an excess payment of duty. This conclusion is supported by legal precedents and the purpose for which the payment was made. The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument that since the payment was made as a pre-deposit under Section 35F, the provisions of Section 11B regarding limitation should not apply. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the company the refund of the pre-deposit amount.
Recovery of erroneous refund - amount paid by the appellant’s Chennai Unit towards the pre-deposit in connection with an appeal filed arising out of order in Tuticorin Central Excise Division with a different Registration Number - The Appellate Tribunal finds that the payment made by the appellant towards pre-deposit for filing the appeal should indeed be considered a pre-deposit and not an excess payment of duty. This conclusion is supported by legal precedents and the purpose for which the payment was made. The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument that since the payment was made as a pre-deposit under Section 35F, the provisions of Section 11B regarding limitation should not apply. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the company the refund of the pre-deposit amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
