Concessional corporate tax option under section 115BAA survives procedural documentary lapses when statutory compliance and earlier exercise are estab...
Penny-stock additions require transaction-specific evidence; general investigation material alone cannot establish undisclosed income or accommodation...
Transfer pricing comparability prioritises reliable external CUPs and foreign-currency LIBOR benchmarks for exports, borrowings and delayed receivable...
Section 153C satisfaction and seized electronic records sustained unexplained-investment addition, subject to proportionate ownership-share verificati...
The period of limitation of one year does not apply when the amount claimed as refund has been paid under protest. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, only recognizes the fact of payment of amounts under protest and does not recognize the vacation of such protest once it is established that the amount claimed as refund was paid under protest. The provisions of Section 27 cannot be applied to refund claims for penalty and fines, as these amounts were paid under protest as per the department's direction for effecting the clearance of goods, though the order imposing the fine and penalty was challenged in appeal. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be held barred by the limitation provided in Section 27, and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim lacks merit, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
The period of limitation of one year does not apply when the amount claimed as refund has been paid under protest. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, only recognizes the fact of payment of amounts under protest and does not recognize the vacation of such protest once it is established that the amount claimed as refund was paid under protest. The provisions of Section 27 cannot be applied to refund claims for penalty and fines, as these amounts were paid under protest as per the department's direction for effecting the clearance of goods, though the order imposing the fine and penalty was challenged in appeal. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be held barred by the limitation provided in Section 27, and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim lacks merit, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.