Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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.