Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the appellant is entitled to a refund of excess additional customs duty. The Tribunal accepted the chartered accountant's certificate dated 29.12.2015, which was identically issued for imports from Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Hyderabad, as sufficient proof that the incidence of duty was not passed on to buyers. The Hyderabad and Ahmedabad Benches had previously upheld the certificate's validity. The Tribunal rejected the department's contention that additional corroborative evidence u/ss 28C and 28D of the Customs Act was required. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) orders confirming the deposit of the sanctioned amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund were set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refunds of Rs. 3,43,88,087/- and Rs. 2,33,05,108/- with consequential relief.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the appellant is entitled to a refund of excess additional customs duty. The Tribunal accepted the chartered accountant's certificate dated 29.12.2015, which was identically issued for imports from Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Hyderabad, as sufficient proof that the incidence of duty was not passed on to buyers. The Hyderabad and Ahmedabad Benches had previously upheld the certificate's validity. The Tribunal rejected the department's contention that additional corroborative evidence u/ss 28C and 28D of the Customs Act was required. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) orders confirming the deposit of the sanctioned amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund were set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refunds of Rs. 3,43,88,087/- and Rs. 2,33,05,108/- with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
