Search Results for "refund claim date"

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...
Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment...
Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witn...

Search Results for "refund claim date"

1598 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1598 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Refund of Premium for Unutilized FSI in Land Development Case — Absence of Express Refund Provision Does Not Bar Refund When Privilege Not Availed. Appellants paid ₹30,46,290/- as premium for additional FSI but abandoned construction; Court held that retention of premium without utilization is unjust enrichment and directed refund with interest.

1 Jan 2026

The appellants, Prasad Pandurang Tapkir and Shakuntala Pandurang Tapkir, owned agricultural land in Survey No. 103/2/2 of Alandi Taluka, Pune District...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Stamp Duty Under Section 48 of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 When Agreement to Purchase is Cancelled Due to Developer's Default. The court held that since no conveyance deed was executed and the agreement was cancelled due to developer's default, the petitioner is entitled to refund of stamp duty under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

11 Jan 2024

The petitioner, Satish Buba Shetty, a retired bank official, entered into an Agreement to Purchase a flat with M/s. Vijaykamal Properties Private Limi...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Advance Stamp Duty Paid on Unexecuted Deed of Assignment — Petitioner Entitled to Refund Under Section 48 of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 as No Instrument Was Executed

5 Jun 2023

The Petitioner, Kasthmandup Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01....

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Refund Recovery Case - Clarifies No Separate Section 11A Notice Required When Refund Order Reviewed Under Section 35E. Recovery of erroneous refund granted through speaking order reviewed under Section 35E of Central Excise Act, 1944 does not require separate show cause notice under Section 11A, as Sections 35E and 11A operate in different fields with different purposes and time limits.

24 Mar 2023

The dispute originated from the respondent company's manufacture of cotton yarn consumed captively in its composite mills for weaving fabric. Followin...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim in Central Excise Duty Case — Limitation Period Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a buyer's refund claim even if the manufacturer paid duty under protest, as the rights of manufacturer and buyer are distinct.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Service Tax Demand on Construction of Port Services. Services by way of construction of original works pertaining to a port are exempt from service tax under Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, Entry No.14.

14 Dec 2018

The petitioners, JSW Dharmatar Port Pvt. Ltd. and JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd., are companies engaged in developing and operating ports. In the course of the...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Customs Interest Refund Case — Interest Under Section 27A Payable from Date of Payment of Duty. The court held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, and interest is payable from the date of payment of duty.

13 Aug 2015

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) d...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of TDS Refund Under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee Failed to Establish That Payments to Foreign Collaborator Were Not Royalty Under Section 9(1)(vi) Read with DTAA.

28 Oct 2005

The petitioners, M/s BASF (India) Limited and Mr. P.A. Ramasamy, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28th February 2001 passed by the Co...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Manufacturer for Refund of Octroi Duty on Imported Chemical Intermediate. Sulphonic Acid, a Raw Material for Detergents, Not Covered Under Entry 18 of Schedule H to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as It Is Not a Substance Used in Washing.

25 Feb 2005

The petitioner, Hindustan Lever Limited, a manufacturer of soaps and detergents, imported Sulphonic Acid, a toxic chemical intermediate used as raw ma...

4 5 6 7 8

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