Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund of redemption fine paid only because of an unlawful departmental insistence was held allowable, as the Tribunal found that payment was not made under SVLDRS itself but was extracted as a precondition for processing the declaration. Relying on Gujarat High Court authority, the Tribunal held that such a demand was legally untenable and that the amount could not be denied refund on the footing that it formed part of the scheme payment. The sum was treated as a pre-deposit-like payment, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply once the claim was otherwise justified. The rejection orders were set aside and consequential relief granted.
Refund of redemption fine paid only because of an unlawful departmental insistence was held allowable, as the Tribunal found that payment was not made under SVLDRS itself but was extracted as a precondition for processing the declaration. Relying on Gujarat High Court authority, the Tribunal held that such a demand was legally untenable and that the amount could not be denied refund on the footing that it formed part of the scheme payment. The sum was treated as a pre-deposit-like payment, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply once the claim was otherwise justified. The rejection orders were set aside and consequential relief granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
