Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
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...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
