Search Results for "tax refund"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Enhances Child Maintenance and Grants Interim Medical Maintenance ...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...

Search Results for "tax refund"

1154 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1154 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Interest on Refund Under Section 244A(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Refund Arising from Appellate Order Not Subject to 10% Threshold. The court held that the 10% threshold under Section 244A(1)(b) applies only to refunds of excess advance tax/TDS, not to refunds arising from appellate orders under Section 244A(1)(a).

9 Feb 2024

The appellant, Ceat Limited, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (IT...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Allows Refund of Service Tax Paid by Non-Resident Despite Revenue's Appeal — Unjust Enrichment Not Applicable. Service Tax Refund Ordered as Stay Application Dismissed and Tax Paid by Appellant Itself, Not Collected from Others.

11 Mar 2015

The appellant, M/s Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., a non-resident service provider, paid service tax under protest for the period 10.09.2004 to 31.12.2004. Af...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of GST Refund Claim for Non-Compliance with Appellate Order. Revenue Authority Directed to Recompute Refund in Accordance with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

1 Feb 2022

The petitioner, M/s. Globus Petroadditions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order d...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Allows Refund of Service Tax Paid by Non-Resident for Period Prior to Amendment — Unjust Enrichment Not Applicable. Service Tax Liability for Period 10.09.2004 to 31.12.2004 Not Attracted as Reverse Charge Mechanism Introduced Only from 01.01.2005 Under Finance Act, 1994.

11 Mar 2015

The appellant, M/s Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., a non-resident service provider, had paid service tax for the period 10.09.2004 to 31.12.2004 under the Fin...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Appellate Order Denying GST Refund on Export of Services to Overseas Entity, Holds Non-Submission of FIRCs Not Fatal When Alternative Proof Exists. The Court Rules that Services Provided on Principal-to-Principal Basis Are Not Intermediary Services Under Section 2(13) of IGST Act, and Directs Refund.

22 Aug 2024

The petitioner, a company providing information technology and software services, filed four applications for refund of unutilized input tax credit (I...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Interest on Delayed Refund of CENVAT Credit Under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. Petitioner entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date immediately after expiry of three months from receipt of refund application till date of refund.

23 Aug 2022

The petitioner, M & G Global Services Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in providing Information Technology enabled services to its group entities located outside...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Stamp Duty Paid Under Mistake of Law — Petitioner Entitled to Refund of Rs. 3,00,100/- for Electronic Stamps Purchased Under Wrong Scheme Code. Mistake of Law Does Not Bar Refund When Stamps Not Used and No Unjust Enrichment.

29 Apr 2026

The petitioner, Manjeet Singh, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a refund of stamp duty paid under a mistake of law. The peti...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Accumulated Input Tax Credit Under Inverted Duty Structure in GST — Rejection by Authorities Set Aside. Held that refund of unutilized ITC is admissible under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017 even when output supply is partially exempt, and that the formula under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 must be applied correctly.

23 Apr 2026

The petitioner, CHEC-TPL Line 4 Joint Venture, a joint venture between TATA Projects Limited and another entity, was engaged in the construction of a ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows GST Refund Claim for Export of Services, Holds That Unjust Enrichment Provisions Do Not Apply When Tax Incidence Is Not Passed On to Any Person in India. The Court interpreted Section 54(8)(d) of CGST Act, 2017 and held that in case of export of services, the foreign client is not a 'person' for the purpose of unjust enrichment, and the refund cannot be rejected on that ground.

9 Jun 2022

The petitioner, Jar Productions Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in providing production services to ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Cash Refund of CENVAT Credit Under Section 11B(2) Proviso (c) When Credit Cannot Be Utilized Due to Exempted Final Products. The court held that clause (c) to the proviso of section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits cash refund of credit on inputs where the assessee is unable to utilize such credit, overruling the contrary view in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jain Vanguard Polybutylene Ltd.

14 Jun 2019

The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court was constituted to resolve a conflict regarding the interpretation of clause (c) to the proviso of section 11B...

2 3 4 5 6

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)