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...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
