Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court held that the co-insurance premium and reinsurance commission would not be considered as supply and thus, the petitioners are entitled to a refund. The amounts deposited by the petitioner were not towards discharge of tax liability, but merely deposits pursuant to the court's order pending final adjudication. Since the utilization of these amounts for tax payment was deferred, they do not fall under the exclusions from refund under Schedule III of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petitions allowed.
The High Court held that the co-insurance premium and reinsurance commission would not be considered as supply and thus, the petitioners are entitled to a refund. The amounts deposited by the petitioner were not towards discharge of tax liability, but merely deposits pursuant to the court's order pending final adjudication. Since the utilization of these amounts for tax payment was deferred, they do not fall under the exclusions from refund under Schedule III of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petitions allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
