Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Income Tax - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights July 2024 Year 2024 This

Refund claim denied u/s 239(2)(c) as assessee filed return after ...


Refund claim allowed u/s 240 for Rs. 27,04,767/- despite late filing, overriding AO & CIT(A) orders.

July 8, 2024

Case Laws     Income Tax     AT

Refund claim denied u/s 239(2)(c) as assessee filed return after one year from last date of relevant assessment year. Assessee contended case covered u/s 240 as refund consequent to appellate order. Held, Section 239 applies to refund by self-assessment, Section 240 covers refund pursuant to appellate order. ACIT passed order u/ss 251/154/147/143(3) determining refund. Assessee's case covered u/s 240, not Section 239. Orders of AO and CIT(A) set aside, assessee entitled to refund of Rs. 27,04,767/-. Appeal allowed.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Yearly Claim of refund of unutilized cenvat credit - Notification number 27/2012 contemplates for filing of refund claims of unutilised Cenvat credit quarterly, but it...

  2. Refund claim - The decision of ITC Limited is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as at the time of filing of Bills of Entry, the appellant...

  3. Amnesty scheme - Failure to file annual returns from financial year 2018-2019 till 01.04.2023, but filed before 31.08.2023. Justification for continuing notices for...

  4. Refund claim u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 was partially allowed. Refund of Rs. 20,52,143/- and Rs. 2,19,004/- granted,...

  5. Refund claim of late fee mistakenly paid - late fee waived off by public notice no.21/2020 - It is found that the Revenue is taking a contradictory stand in as much as...

  6. Refund of unutilized cenvat credit - validity of SCN - As per the Notification No.27/2012, there is no requirement to debit in the service return, the only requirement...

  7. Refund claim - Bar of limitation - Respondent filed refund claim consequential to the dropping of demand under adjudication order dated 27/11/2009 within 3 months -...

  8. The period of limitation of one year does not apply when the amount claimed as refund has been paid under protest. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, only recognizes...

  9. The appellants claimed that the entire amount of service tax paid by them should be considered as a deposit u/s 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought a refund....

  10. The case involved a dispute over the refund of a cash security deposit u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund on...

  11. Assessee's claim for foreign tax credit u/s 90 allowed despite delay in filing Form No. 67 after due date of filing return u/s 139(1). Delay in filing Form 67 cannot...

  12. Refund of duty paid - filing of refund claim before the wrong jurisdiction - if the adjudicating authority was of the view that the appellant has not filed refund claim...

  13. Refund of duty paid - filing of refund claim before the wrong jurisdiction - if the adjudicating authority was of the view that the appellant has not filed refund claim...

  14. Jurisdiction issue regarding the refund claim filed by the service receiver, whether the Mumbai Service Tax authority or the Kolkata Service Tax authority has the...

  15. Relevant date for filing of Refund - It is settled that even if the refund claim is filed well within the time and the same is returned for want of clarification or...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates