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...
Refund claim of excess duty denied due to unjust enrichment - goods sold based on LME price index. Revenue contended appellant booked excess duty as revenue expenditure initially, then as recoverable after favorable order, disallowing refund. Tribunal relied on prior ruling that mere accounting treatment insufficient to prove burden passed on, requiring evidence from Revenue. Appellant selling goods based on LME price index. Supreme Court ruled for such pricing, duty cannot be loaded, precluding unjust enrichment. Appellant bore duty burden paid to supplier, entitled to refund of excess duty as rightly allowed earlier. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.
Refund claim of excess duty denied due to unjust enrichment - goods sold based on LME price index. Revenue contended appellant booked excess duty as revenue expenditure initially, then as recoverable after favorable order, disallowing refund. Tribunal relied on prior ruling that mere accounting treatment insufficient to prove burden passed on, requiring evidence from Revenue. Appellant selling goods based on LME price index. Supreme Court ruled for such pricing, duty cannot be loaded, precluding unjust enrichment. Appellant bore duty burden paid to supplier, entitled to refund of excess duty as rightly allowed earlier. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.