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 ...
The appellant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited 'under protest' during the pendency of adjudication proceedings and investigation, as it cannot be considered payment of duty and is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The deposit made from April 2016 to June 2017, when no show cause notice was issued, was merely a precautionary measure and cannot be characterized as 'duty'. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such deposits are not subject to unjust enrichment principles and allowed the refund claim, setting aside the impugned orders.
The appellant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited 'under protest' during the pendency of adjudication proceedings and investigation, as it cannot be considered payment of duty and is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The deposit made from April 2016 to June 2017, when no show cause notice was issued, was merely a precautionary measure and cannot be characterized as 'duty'. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such deposits are not subject to unjust enrichment principles and allowed the refund claim, setting aside the impugned orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
