Jurisdictional sanction requirements bar reassessment when approval comes from an authority lacking statutory competence under the applicable framewor...
Recorded sales receipts cannot be reassessed as unexplained cash credits, eliminating the basis for consequential alleged commission expenditure addit...
Sufficient cause for delayed income-tax appeals requires bona fide diligence; unsubstantiated counsel illness and assessee inaction defeat condonation...
TNMM Segmentation Limits Transfer-Pricing Adjustments to Associated-Enterprise Transactions and Requires Turnover-Based Comparable Selection for IT Se...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the appellant is eligible for refund of input services as claimed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007. The time limit for filing refund claims was extended from 60 days to six months by Notification No. 32/2008-S.T. dated 18.11.2008, which has retrospective application. The substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied merely on procedural grounds of filing claims beyond 60 days for invoices relating to the relevant quarter. The CESTAT relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s Rungta Mines Ltd.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the appellant is eligible for refund of input services as claimed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007. The time limit for filing refund claims was extended from 60 days to six months by Notification No. 32/2008-S.T. dated 18.11.2008, which has retrospective application. The substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied merely on procedural grounds of filing claims beyond 60 days for invoices relating to the relevant quarter. The CESTAT relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s Rungta Mines Ltd.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
