Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Refund of export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Refund of export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
