Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the petitioners' refund application for accumulated ITC was within the statutory limitation period, relying on the precedent that struck down the relevant circular provision. Although a refund sanction order was issued, a subsequent demand notice and Order-in-Original confirming a tax demand with penalty were challenged. The court found the impugned orders dated 31.3.2023 and 29.2.2024 illegal and unsustainable, quashing and setting aside both the refund rejection and the appeal order. The petition was allowed, thereby validating the refund claim and negating the subsequent tax demand and penalty.
The HC held that the petitioners' refund application for accumulated ITC was within the statutory limitation period, relying on the precedent that struck down the relevant circular provision. Although a refund sanction order was issued, a subsequent demand notice and Order-in-Original confirming a tax demand with penalty were challenged. The court found the impugned orders dated 31.3.2023 and 29.2.2024 illegal and unsustainable, quashing and setting aside both the refund rejection and the appeal order. The petition was allowed, thereby validating the refund claim and negating the subsequent tax demand and penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
