Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 allowed the petitioner's writ and directed the respondent to refund the wrongly retained tax together with interest under s.243 until payment, holding that the respondent lacked statutory authority to set off or retain the amount because it failed to demonstrate any tax liability due from the petitioner. The court emphasized that recovery of tax requires a specific charging provision and rejected reliance on prior authorities as inapplicable to the distinct cause of action. Consequential relief in the form of interest was granted and the respondent was ordered to complete the refund process within ten weeks from communication of the order.
The HC allowed the petitioner's writ and directed the respondent to refund the wrongly retained tax together with interest under s.243 until payment, holding that the respondent lacked statutory authority to set off or retain the amount because it failed to demonstrate any tax liability due from the petitioner. The court emphasized that recovery of tax requires a specific charging provision and rejected reliance on prior authorities as inapplicable to the distinct cause of action. Consequential relief in the form of interest was granted and the respondent was ordered to complete the refund process within ten weeks from communication of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
