Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Refund including cash refund of DEPB/FPS scrips - principles of unjust enrichment - The Tribunal examined the facts surrounding the refund claims and acknowledged the respondent's reliance on the London Metal Exchange (LME) for pricing. They found that the price of the final products was determined based on LME prices, which were beyond the control of the respondent. - The CESTAT concluded that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case. They emphasized that the final product prices were based on LME prices, and there was no evidence of the duty burden being passed on to buyers.
Refund including cash refund of DEPB/FPS scrips - principles of unjust enrichment - The Tribunal examined the facts surrounding the refund claims and acknowledged the respondent's reliance on the London Metal Exchange (LME) for pricing. They found that the price of the final products was determined based on LME prices, which were beyond the control of the respondent. - The CESTAT concluded that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case. They emphasized that the final product prices were based on LME prices, and there was no evidence of the duty burden being passed on to buyers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
