Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order. The Tribunal found that the refund claim was erroneously rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of limitation u/s 11B, as there was an inconsistency in treating part of the amount paid as a pre-deposit and the remaining amount differently, despite being of the same nature. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the issue required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order. The Tribunal found that the refund claim was erroneously rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of limitation u/s 11B, as there was an inconsistency in treating part of the amount paid as a pre-deposit and the remaining amount differently, despite being of the same nature. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the issue required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
