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 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
