Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
AT directed the appellants to refund monies to 1,100 investors who approached them, granting a reduced rate of interest of 9% per annum in lieu of the prayed 12%. The Tribunal found the land rendered unusable by oil spillage, preventing the cultivation of promised teak saplings and noting investors' delay of approximately three decades. In the exercise of equitable discretion and in the interests of justice, the claim for refund was allowed subject to the reduced rate; appellants were ordered to make restitution to the identified investors at 9% p.a., thereby resolving the dispute without compelling performance of the original prospectus benefits.
AT directed the appellants to refund monies to 1,100 investors who approached them, granting a reduced rate of interest of 9% per annum in lieu of the prayed 12%. The Tribunal found the land rendered unusable by oil spillage, preventing the cultivation of promised teak saplings and noting investors' delay of approximately three decades. In the exercise of equitable discretion and in the interests of justice, the claim for refund was allowed subject to the reduced rate; appellants were ordered to make restitution to the identified investors at 9% p.a., thereby resolving the dispute without compelling performance of the original prospectus benefits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
