Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The case involves a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to entertain an appeal u/s 142(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 regarding refund of CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal held that claims for refund must be processed according to existing laws, specifically Chapter V of the Finance Act and the Central Excise Act. The decision in Bosch Electrical applies to refunds u/s 142(9)(b), allowing appeals to be filed with the CESTAT. The matter is now to be decided by the appropriate Bench.
The case involves a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to entertain an appeal u/s 142(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 regarding refund of CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal held that claims for refund must be processed according to existing laws, specifically Chapter V of the Finance Act and the Central Excise Act. The decision in Bosch Electrical applies to refunds u/s 142(9)(b), allowing appeals to be filed with the CESTAT. The matter is now to be decided by the appropriate Bench.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
