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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 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 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to issue a refund of Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) along with interest due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that since the petitioner's application for refund was made at the ports of export and the claim was to be dealt with by the Customs Authorities of the port, the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, the Court did not adjudicate on the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of IGST despite having claimed a higher rate of duty drawback.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to issue a refund of Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) along with interest due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that since the petitioner's application for refund was made at the ports of export and the claim was to be dealt with by the Customs Authorities of the port, the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, the Court did not adjudicate on the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of IGST despite having claimed a higher rate of duty drawback.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
