Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Validity of refund sanction orders was examined with primary focus on procedural fairness and the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order. The court found the impugned administrative order failed to consider petitioner's submissions and lacked discussion showing the refund claim was legally incorrect; rejection rested on the department's inability to distinguish payment purpose without contrary material. Consequently the impugned order was held unsustainable for want of a reasoned decision and natural justice, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered or dealt with further to meet the ends of justice.
Validity of refund sanction orders was examined with primary focus on procedural fairness and the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order. The court found the impugned administrative order failed to consider petitioner's submissions and lacked discussion showing the refund claim was legally incorrect; rejection rested on the department's inability to distinguish payment purpose without contrary material. Consequently the impugned order was held unsustainable for want of a reasoned decision and natural justice, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered or dealt with further to meet the ends of justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.