Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96301 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 4816 
Join Channel 
