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...
Appeals challenging refund rejection of additional customs duty on imported mobile phones were dismissed by CESTAT. Though appellant could benefit from time exclusion under Section 14 of Limitation Act (25.09.2015 to 18.09.2019), appeals remained time-barred under Section 128(1) of Customs Act. Original SCNs dated 26.09.2018 were adjudicated within valid timeframe considering COVID extensions and Chief Commissioner's extension until 30.06.2021. CESTAT upheld that department could validly issue Section 28 notices for erroneously granted refunds, rejecting appellant's contention that only appeal route was available. Commissioner (Appeals) correctly dismissed appeals as time-barred, even after accounting for excludable period, as they exceeded statutory 60-day filing window plus 30-day condonable delay period.
Appeals challenging refund rejection of additional customs duty on imported mobile phones were dismissed by CESTAT. Though appellant could benefit from time exclusion under Section 14 of Limitation Act (25.09.2015 to 18.09.2019), appeals remained time-barred under Section 128(1) of Customs Act. Original SCNs dated 26.09.2018 were adjudicated within valid timeframe considering COVID extensions and Chief Commissioner's extension until 30.06.2021. CESTAT upheld that department could validly issue Section 28 notices for erroneously granted refunds, rejecting appellant's contention that only appeal route was available. Commissioner (Appeals) correctly dismissed appeals as time-barred, even after accounting for excludable period, as they exceeded statutory 60-day filing window plus 30-day condonable delay period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
