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 High Court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's refund claims for excess tax paid in different assessment years on the ground of time limitation. The Court observed that Rule 29 prescribes the time limit for filing refund claims, but the proviso empowers the authority to admit delayed claims if sufficient cause is shown. The impugned orders did not reflect if the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the delay. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to refund or the assessment proceedings referred to. The Court remanded the matter to the concerned authority, permitting the petitioner to explain the causes of delay in filing the refund applications.
The High Court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's refund claims for excess tax paid in different assessment years on the ground of time limitation. The Court observed that Rule 29 prescribes the time limit for filing refund claims, but the proviso empowers the authority to admit delayed claims if sufficient cause is shown. The impugned orders did not reflect if the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the delay. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to refund or the assessment proceedings referred to. The Court remanded the matter to the concerned authority, permitting the petitioner to explain the causes of delay in filing the refund applications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
