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...
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
