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...
CESTAT denied interest claim on pre-deposit refund made u/s 35F of Central Excise Act. Pre-deposit from 2012 was refunded in 2018 post-favorable appeal outcome. While appellant sought interest from deposit date, CESTAT held that u/s 35FF, interest is payable only after three months from appellate order communication. Despite appellant's reliance on Sandvik Asia precedent, CESTAT distinguished current case as specific statutory provisions now govern interest payment on pre-deposits. Since refund was processed within prescribed timeframe, no interest liability arose. Tribunal emphasized that post-2014 Finance Act amendments, pre-deposits are governed by provisions existing at time of deposit. Appeal dismissed with no interest awarded on refunded amount.
CESTAT denied interest claim on pre-deposit refund made u/s 35F of Central Excise Act. Pre-deposit from 2012 was refunded in 2018 post-favorable appeal outcome. While appellant sought interest from deposit date, CESTAT held that u/s 35FF, interest is payable only after three months from appellate order communication. Despite appellant's reliance on Sandvik Asia precedent, CESTAT distinguished current case as specific statutory provisions now govern interest payment on pre-deposits. Since refund was processed within prescribed timeframe, no interest liability arose. Tribunal emphasized that post-2014 Finance Act amendments, pre-deposits are governed by provisions existing at time of deposit. Appeal dismissed with no interest awarded on refunded amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
