Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1721 to 1740 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Provisional anti-dumping duty collected on import of copper clad laminates was held refundable once the provisional levy was withdrawn without confirmation. The Tribunal noted that Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Rules required refund of any collection made between imposition and withdrawal, and that a separate refund application was not a basis to defeat the claim. It further held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be imported to deny refund under this rule, and that treatment of the amount as expenditure in the books or the absence of a receivable entry did not by itself establish unjust enrichment. The appellate order was set aside and refund with applicable interest was directed.
Provisional anti-dumping duty collected on import of copper clad laminates was held refundable once the provisional levy was withdrawn without confirmation. The Tribunal noted that Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Rules required refund of any collection made between imposition and withdrawal, and that a separate refund application was not a basis to defeat the claim. It further held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be imported to deny refund under this rule, and that treatment of the amount as expenditure in the books or the absence of a receivable entry did not by itself establish unjust enrichment. The appellate order was set aside and refund with applicable interest was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.