Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 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 
