Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
The dominant issue was whether the refund application was time-barred. Relying on its earlier ruling in an identical factual matrix, the Court held that rejection of the refund solely on limitation was contrary to facts and law because the refund claim had been filed within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether the refund application was time-barred. Relying on its earlier ruling in an identical factual matrix, the Court held that rejection of the refund solely on limitation was contrary to facts and law because the refund claim had been filed within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
