Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
201 to 220 of 95955 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 held that the Revenue's decision to adjust the refund due to the petitioner for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 against the stayed demand for the assessment year 2015-16 was arbitrary. The court noted that granting stay of recovery subject to payment of 20% of the outstanding tax demand was in accordance with the CBDT's instructions. Adjusting refunds against the stayed demand would place the assessee entitled to a refund in a disadvantageous position compared to those without refunds. There was no allegation that the petitioner was alienating assets or unable to pay the disputed demand if confirmed. The court directed the Revenue to refund the amount due with applicable interest for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 within eight weeks.
The High Court held that the Revenue's decision to adjust the refund due to the petitioner for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 against the stayed demand for the assessment year 2015-16 was arbitrary. The court noted that granting stay of recovery subject to payment of 20% of the outstanding tax demand was in accordance with the CBDT's instructions. Adjusting refunds against the stayed demand would place the assessee entitled to a refund in a disadvantageous position compared to those without refunds. There was no allegation that the petitioner was alienating assets or unable to pay the disputed demand if confirmed. The court directed the Revenue to refund the amount due with applicable interest for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 within eight weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
