Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
CESTAT allowed the refund application, holding that the limitation period was validly extended by Supreme Court's COVID-19 order. The appellant's refund application filed on 12.04.2022 was deemed timely, as the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was explicitly excluded from limitation calculations. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for being unaware of the Supreme Court's directive, ultimately dismissing the lower court's orders and granting the appellant's appeals.
CESTAT allowed the refund application, holding that the limitation period was validly extended by Supreme Court's COVID-19 order. The appellant's refund application filed on 12.04.2022 was deemed timely, as the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was explicitly excluded from limitation calculations. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for being unaware of the Supreme Court's directive, ultimately dismissing the lower court's orders and granting the appellant's appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
