Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
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...
Refund of Excess Customs Duty paid - principles of unjust enrichment - Following proceedings before the Settlement Commission, it was determined that the appellant had indeed overpaid, resulting in an excess amount of refund. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to claim the refund, considering the terms of the agreement with their overseas supplier, the treatment of the amount in their accounting records, and legal precedents supporting their case. - The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund of the excess amount, as they had not passed on the duty burden and had treated it as receivable in their accounts.
Refund of Excess Customs Duty paid - principles of unjust enrichment - Following proceedings before the Settlement Commission, it was determined that the appellant had indeed overpaid, resulting in an excess amount of refund. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to claim the refund, considering the terms of the agreement with their overseas supplier, the treatment of the amount in their accounting records, and legal precedents supporting their case. - The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund of the excess amount, as they had not passed on the duty burden and had treated it as receivable in their accounts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.