Search Results for "assessment time-barred"

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 "assessment time-barred"

12 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 12 result(s)

Supreme Court

Upholding Autonomy Amidst Settlement Disputes Exploring Legal Principles and Precedents in Arbitration Law

18 Jul 2024

This Judgment pertains to a legal discussion surrounding arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly focusing on the re...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hears Reference on Interpretation of Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) — Jurisdiction Includes Limitation. The court examines whether the expression 'jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit' under Section 9A includes the issue of limitation, doubting the correctness of Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society v. Praveen D. Desai.

4 Oct 2019

The Supreme Court considered a reference made by a Division Bench doubting the correctness of the decision in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Li...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Considers Whether Refund Claim Under Customs Act Requires Appeal Against Assessment Order. Self-Assessment Under Section 17 and Amendment to Section 27 by Finance Act 2011 Examined.

18 Sep 2019

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals filed by assessees and the Union of India against judgments of various High Courts and the Customs, Excise ...

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 for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for 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...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for 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 ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — No Contributory Negligence by Deceased Driver. Insurer Failed to Prove Negligence of Deceased in Head-On Collision with Tempo; MACT Award of Rs. 71,36,917 Upheld.

9 Jun 2017

The case arises from a motor accident claim filed by the respondents (claimants) being the legal heirs of Sudam Auti, who died in a head-on collision ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petition in Debt Recovery Pre-deposit Dispute — Holds Section 21 Not Applicable at Condonation Stage. The court ruled that the pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 applies only at the stage of entertainment of appeal, not at the stage of considering an application for condonation of delay.

18 Mar 2016

The petitioners, M/s. Deluxe Cotton Corporation and others, challenged an order dated 14 July 2014 of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mum...

1 2

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