Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that excess tax had to be refunded under the JVAT Act, 2005, and that a dealer entitled to refund was also entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum after ninety days from the refund application until actual payment. Once the earlier challenge had ended, including dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the Department was bound to process and release the refund. Administrative excuses such as vacancy or deputation of officers were held legally untenable and could not justify continued delay or defeat the statutory refund entitlement. The Commissioner was directed to ensure release of the refund with interest within the time fixed by the Court.
The HC held that excess tax had to be refunded under the JVAT Act, 2005, and that a dealer entitled to refund was also entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum after ninety days from the refund application until actual payment. Once the earlier challenge had ended, including dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the Department was bound to process and release the refund. Administrative excuses such as vacancy or deputation of officers were held legally untenable and could not justify continued delay or defeat the statutory refund entitlement. The Commissioner was directed to ensure release of the refund with interest within the time fixed by the Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.