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...
Violation of principles of natural justice - Seeking proportionate refund of cess i.e., cess paid on coal which was utilized in zero-rated supplies - The High Court noted that the fixing of the personal hearing date before the expiry of the 15-day period for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice deprived the petitioner of adequate time to respond effectively. The court highlighted the necessity of allowing parties sufficient time to prepare and present their case. - The rejection order of the refund claim was criticized for being a non-speaking order, as it failed to provide reasons for the rejection, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 92(3) of the Rules. - Matter restored back for re-adjudication.
Violation of principles of natural justice - Seeking proportionate refund of cess i.e., cess paid on coal which was utilized in zero-rated supplies - The High Court noted that the fixing of the personal hearing date before the expiry of the 15-day period for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice deprived the petitioner of adequate time to respond effectively. The court highlighted the necessity of allowing parties sufficient time to prepare and present their case. - The rejection order of the refund claim was criticized for being a non-speaking order, as it failed to provide reasons for the rejection, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 92(3) of the Rules. - Matter restored back for re-adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
