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 dismissed appeals concerning interest claims on refunded CENVAT credit. The appellant reversed credit following show cause notices but without written protest. Though partial credit was later allowed per Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2011, the reversed amount was deemed appropriated as duty payment, not a revenue deposit. The reversal constituted appropriation since it matched the amount proposed in show cause notices. As refunds were processed within the statutory three-month period, no interest liability arose under Section 11BB. The Tribunal distinguished from Pricol Ltd precedent, noting absence of protest during reversal. The amounts were treated as appropriated duty payments rather than deposits under protest, making interest claims untenable.
CESTAT dismissed appeals concerning interest claims on refunded CENVAT credit. The appellant reversed credit following show cause notices but without written protest. Though partial credit was later allowed per Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2011, the reversed amount was deemed appropriated as duty payment, not a revenue deposit. The reversal constituted appropriation since it matched the amount proposed in show cause notices. As refunds were processed within the statutory three-month period, no interest liability arose under Section 11BB. The Tribunal distinguished from Pricol Ltd precedent, noting absence of protest during reversal. The amounts were treated as appropriated duty payments rather than deposits under protest, making interest claims untenable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
