Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 2,195/- by the respondent was improper and contrary to the budgetary support scheme notification. The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid, after input tax credit utilization. The HC directed the respondent to release the inadmissible amount for the quarter January 2022 to March 2022, finding no justification for the partial claim rejection.
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 2,195/- by the respondent was improper and contrary to the budgetary support scheme notification. The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid, after input tax credit utilization. The HC directed the respondent to release the inadmissible amount for the quarter January 2022 to March 2022, finding no justification for the partial claim rejection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
