Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dispute concerns recovery of funds erroneously transferred to a wrong beneficiary account and the applicability of CGST/WBGST provisions. HC examined bank report, affidavit of the added respondent and Ombudsman order, found transfer resulted from payers mistake (account digits mismatched) and that the unintended recipient disavowed any commercial relationship and consented to return the funds; consequently the bank was directed to credit the amount back to the payers account within one week. The operative effect is mandatory restitution of the mistakenly transferred amount by the bank to the payer.
Dispute concerns recovery of funds erroneously transferred to a wrong beneficiary account and the applicability of CGST/WBGST provisions. HC examined bank report, affidavit of the added respondent and Ombudsman order, found transfer resulted from payers mistake (account digits mismatched) and that the unintended recipient disavowed any commercial relationship and consented to return the funds; consequently the bank was directed to credit the amount back to the payers account within one week. The operative effect is mandatory restitution of the mistakenly transferred amount by the bank to the payer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
