Business deductions and transfer pricing issues: tribunal treatment of software write-offs, donation receipts, warranty provisions, and related expens...
Equivalent value attachment under money laundering law upheld where received funds were treated as proceeds of crime and prior-acquired property could...
The HC allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, and directed respondents to refund the contested amount with statutory interest at 6% per annum from the date the order of the First Authority became operative, on the ground that the refund was not made within 60 days of that order. The court rejected respondents' plea to attract the higher 9% rate, noting petitioners sought only 6% and that the Appellate Authority had quashed the original rejection dated 14.09.2020. The HC held the rejection to be unlawful and confirmed entitlement to the specified interest on the delayed refund.
The HC allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, and directed respondents to refund the contested amount with statutory interest at 6% per annum from the date the order of the First Authority became operative, on the ground that the refund was not made within 60 days of that order. The court rejected respondents' plea to attract the higher 9% rate, noting petitioners sought only 6% and that the Appellate Authority had quashed the original rejection dated 14.09.2020. The HC held the rejection to be unlawful and confirmed entitlement to the specified interest on the delayed refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
