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...
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.