Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment and permits working capital adjustment, while APA margins cannot govern non-covered years...
Treaty benefit, goodwill depreciation and hedging costs: export commission disallowed, while key business deductions and depreciation claims succeeded...
Undisclosed foreign asset classification requires an unexplained source; unrebutted affidavits and corroborative evidence defeated the Black Money Act...
The ITAT Delhi held that interest levied u/s 220(2) on non-payment of FBT demand, adjusted against a refund due, was not justified as no intimation or notice of demand was served on the assessee regarding the FBT liability u/s 115WE. The assessee had deposited the FBT demand suo motu, but it was still recovered from the refund along with interest. The tribunal found that the mere appearance of the demand on the e-filing portal did not absolve the Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of serving the notice. While the assessee had paid the FBT liability, it did not create an interest liability u/s 220(2). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT Delhi held that interest levied u/s 220(2) on non-payment of FBT demand, adjusted against a refund due, was not justified as no intimation or notice of demand was served on the assessee regarding the FBT liability u/s 115WE. The assessee had deposited the FBT demand suo motu, but it was still recovered from the refund along with interest. The tribunal found that the mere appearance of the demand on the e-filing portal did not absolve the Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of serving the notice. While the assessee had paid the FBT liability, it did not create an interest liability u/s 220(2). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
