Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1021 to 1040 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 High Court considered a case involving the refund of excise duty paid by a company and the principles of unjust enrichment. The issue was whether the company successfully proved that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer. Despite the company's arguments, the court found that the duty had indeed been recovered from the customer. The court rejected the reliance on a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant, stating it contradicted the invoices. The court upheld the decision to credit the refund amount to the consumer welfare fund to prevent unjust enrichment. The court referenced a similar case where a certificate from a Chartered Accountant was disbelieved. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court considered a case involving the refund of excise duty paid by a company and the principles of unjust enrichment. The issue was whether the company successfully proved that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer. Despite the company's arguments, the court found that the duty had indeed been recovered from the customer. The court rejected the reliance on a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant, stating it contradicted the invoices. The court upheld the decision to credit the refund amount to the consumer welfare fund to prevent unjust enrichment. The court referenced a similar case where a certificate from a Chartered Accountant was disbelieved. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
