Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim (of Cenvat Credit) filed by the appellant beyond the time limit. The Assistant Commissioner stated that the refund was sanctioned earlier, but the appellant did not utilize the remedy u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act within the stipulated time. The communication from the Assistant Commissioner was deemed appealable based on precedent. The appellant's refund claim was filed before the introduction of GST, and the order allowing the refund implied it should be in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deeming the appeal non-maintainable, and the jurisdictional authorities were directed to implement the refund order in cash u/s 142(3) and 142(6) of the CGST Act. The appeal was allowed.
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim (of Cenvat Credit) filed by the appellant beyond the time limit. The Assistant Commissioner stated that the refund was sanctioned earlier, but the appellant did not utilize the remedy u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act within the stipulated time. The communication from the Assistant Commissioner was deemed appealable based on precedent. The appellant's refund claim was filed before the introduction of GST, and the order allowing the refund implied it should be in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deeming the appeal non-maintainable, and the jurisdictional authorities were directed to implement the refund order in cash u/s 142(3) and 142(6) of the CGST Act. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
