Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
HC dismissed writ appeal challenging refund application under Section 142(3) for unutilized CENVAT credit. The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling, finding the refund claim unsustainable based on Supreme Court precedent and existing statutory provisions. The appellant's arguments regarding refund under Section 55 of CGST Act were rejected as futile. The court determined no interference was warranted with the original judgment, thereby conclusively dismissing the appeal and maintaining the lower court's decision against the refund claim.
HC dismissed writ appeal challenging refund application under Section 142(3) for unutilized CENVAT credit. The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling, finding the refund claim unsustainable based on Supreme Court precedent and existing statutory provisions. The appellant's arguments regarding refund under Section 55 of CGST Act were rejected as futile. The court determined no interference was warranted with the original judgment, thereby conclusively dismissing the appeal and maintaining the lower court's decision against the refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.