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 appellant is entitled to interest on the sanctioned refund from the date after three months from the date of application till the date of sanction of refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying interest based on the explanation appended to Section 27A, which is not applicable as the refund sanction order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. As per Section 27A, the appellant is eligible for interest after three months from the date of refund application, not from the date of the refund order, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Union of India. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The appellant is entitled to interest on the sanctioned refund from the date after three months from the date of application till the date of sanction of refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying interest based on the explanation appended to Section 27A, which is not applicable as the refund sanction order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. As per Section 27A, the appellant is eligible for interest after three months from the date of refund application, not from the date of the refund order, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Union of India. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.