Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
