Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
