Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Refund claim - Payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 84/2017-Cus instead of availing full exemption under Notification No. 93/2017-Cus. - The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the refund claim was not maintainable. It held that the respondent's request for re-assessment under Section 149 constituted an appeal before the authorities. Furthermore, it noted that the respondent was entitled to choose the more beneficial provision for duty payment. - The Tribunal affirmed that when two beneficial notifications are applicable, the assessee has the right to opt for the one more advantageous to them. - Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's entitlement to the refund, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Refund claim - Payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 84/2017-Cus instead of availing full exemption under Notification No. 93/2017-Cus. - The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the refund claim was not maintainable. It held that the respondent's request for re-assessment under Section 149 constituted an appeal before the authorities. Furthermore, it noted that the respondent was entitled to choose the more beneficial provision for duty payment. - The Tribunal affirmed that when two beneficial notifications are applicable, the assessee has the right to opt for the one more advantageous to them. - Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's entitlement to the refund, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
