Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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.