Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
