Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC declined to entertain the writ petition seeking refund of taxes allegedly paid under mistake of law, holding that a mandamus for refund is not ordinarily maintainable absent a prior demand for justice and its refusal. Relying on binding precedent, the HC reiterated that monetary refund claims, involving issues such as limitation, delay, laches and unjust enrichment, should ordinarily be pursued through appropriate statutory or civil remedies, not by a bare writ for mandamus. The petition was disposed of without examining the merits of the refund claim. The HC clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to apply for refund or raise a demand for justice in accordance with law, which the competent authority must decide within a reasonable time, without reviving any time-barred claims.
The HC declined to entertain the writ petition seeking refund of taxes allegedly paid under mistake of law, holding that a mandamus for refund is not ordinarily maintainable absent a prior demand for justice and its refusal. Relying on binding precedent, the HC reiterated that monetary refund claims, involving issues such as limitation, delay, laches and unjust enrichment, should ordinarily be pursued through appropriate statutory or civil remedies, not by a bare writ for mandamus. The petition was disposed of without examining the merits of the refund claim. The HC clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to apply for refund or raise a demand for justice in accordance with law, which the competent authority must decide within a reasonable time, without reviving any time-barred claims.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
