Jurisdictional sanction requirements bar reassessment when approval comes from an authority lacking statutory competence under the applicable framewor...
Recorded sales receipts cannot be reassessed as unexplained cash credits, eliminating the basis for consequential alleged commission expenditure addit...
Sufficient cause for delayed income-tax appeals requires bona fide diligence; unsubstantiated counsel illness and assessee inaction defeat condonation...
TNMM Segmentation Limits Transfer-Pricing Adjustments to Associated-Enterprise Transactions and Requires Turnover-Based Comparable Selection for IT Se...
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of...
CESTAT ruled in favor of refunding interest under Section 72 of Finance Act, 2010 for retrospective amendment. Tribunal upheld interest on excess credit.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for refund of interest was not valid as the interest had already been paid in compliance with the retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing a refund claim for the interest paid on reversed credit. Regarding excess credit, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of interest refund for Rs. 88,22,475/- but allowed interest on Rs. 1,00,10,808/- from three months after filing the refund claim. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of.
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for refund of interest was not valid as the interest had already been paid in compliance with the retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing a refund claim for the interest paid on reversed credit. Regarding excess credit, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of interest refund for Rs. 88,22,475/- but allowed interest on Rs. 1,00,10,808/- from three months after filing the refund claim. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
