Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
