Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The High Court upheld the CESTAT's ruling that the time limit of one year for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of final assessment, not from the date of payment of provisional duty, as per Section 27(1B)(C) of the Customs Act. The court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd case and CESTAT's ruling in Suzuki Motorcycle India P. Ltd case, which held that refund claims filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation. The court rejected the Revenue's reliance on Notification No. 93/2008, which contradicted the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law arising from the CESTAT's order.
The High Court upheld the CESTAT's ruling that the time limit of one year for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of final assessment, not from the date of payment of provisional duty, as per Section 27(1B)(C) of the Customs Act. The court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pioneer India Electronics Pvt Ltd case and CESTAT's ruling in Suzuki Motorcycle India P. Ltd case, which held that refund claims filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation. The court rejected the Revenue's reliance on Notification No. 93/2008, which contradicted the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law arising from the CESTAT's order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.