Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the denial of refund of excess tax paid by contractors under the Haryana Alternative Tax Compliance Scheme for Contractors, 2016. The court examined the Constitutional Validity of Clause 4(2) of the scheme and found that it created unjust enrichment in favor of the Revenue, disadvantaging contractors who had been regularly paying taxes. Referring to CORPORATION BANK VERSUS SARASWATI ABHARANSALA, the court emphasized that excess tax must be refunded unless it involves unjust enrichment. The court quashed the orders denying refund, ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing payment of refund with interest within four weeks, with additional interest at 9% if delayed. Petition allowed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the denial of refund of excess tax paid by contractors under the Haryana Alternative Tax Compliance Scheme for Contractors, 2016. The court examined the Constitutional Validity of Clause 4(2) of the scheme and found that it created unjust enrichment in favor of the Revenue, disadvantaging contractors who had been regularly paying taxes. Referring to CORPORATION BANK VERSUS SARASWATI ABHARANSALA, the court emphasized that excess tax must be refunded unless it involves unjust enrichment. The court quashed the orders denying refund, ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing payment of refund with interest within four weeks, with additional interest at 9% if delayed. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
