Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Refund of special additional duty was not subject to the one-year limitation inserted by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. because Section 27 of the Customs Act did not cover such duty paid on import. The article notes that imposing a limitation period from the date of duty payment through an amended exemption notification would affect the substantive refund right without statutory amendment. Following the Larger Bench ruling in Ambey Sales, the High Court found the Tribunal justified in allowing the refund claims and held that no substantial question of law arose. The revenue appeals were dismissed.
Refund of special additional duty was not subject to the one-year limitation inserted by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. because Section 27 of the Customs Act did not cover such duty paid on import. The article notes that imposing a limitation period from the date of duty payment through an amended exemption notification would affect the substantive refund right without statutory amendment. Following the Larger Bench ruling in Ambey Sales, the High Court found the Tribunal justified in allowing the refund claims and held that no substantial question of law arose. The revenue appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.