Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Refund rejection orders concerning unutilised input tax credit of compensation cess on zero-rated supplies were not sustained because the controversy was identical to that already decided in the assessee's own case. Applying the earlier Division Bench decision, the HC directed reconsideration by the original authority in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing. The refund matters were thus remanded for fresh decision within four months, and the impugned rejection orders were set aside for that limited purpose.
Refund rejection orders concerning unutilised input tax credit of compensation cess on zero-rated supplies were not sustained because the controversy was identical to that already decided in the assessee's own case. Applying the earlier Division Bench decision, the HC directed reconsideration by the original authority in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing. The refund matters were thus remanded for fresh decision within four months, and the impugned rejection orders were set aside for that limited purpose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
