Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that a Commissioner's mere decision to appeal does not automatically suspend a refund order under Section 54(11). The plain statutory language indicates that the pendency of an appeal does not ipso facto place the principal order in abeyance. Relying on prior judicial precedent, the court mandated that the revenue authority must comply with the appellate order and release the refund amount with applicable statutory interest. The writ petition was consequently allowed, directing immediate refund to the petitioner.
HC held that a Commissioner's mere decision to appeal does not automatically suspend a refund order under Section 54(11). The plain statutory language indicates that the pendency of an appeal does not ipso facto place the principal order in abeyance. Relying on prior judicial precedent, the court mandated that the revenue authority must comply with the appellate order and release the refund amount with applicable statutory interest. The writ petition was consequently allowed, directing immediate refund to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.