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 an appeal concerning refund claims for excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) on mobile phone imports. The tribunal upheld rejection on three grounds: time-bar (claim filed in 2019 for 2014 payments exceeded one-year limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, with no evidence of protest payment), lack of prerequisite reassessment (77 Bills of Entry remained unmodified despite appellant's amendment request), and failure to overcome unjust enrichment presumption (insufficient evidence that duty burden wasn't passed to buyers). The appellant's incomplete CA certificate failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Section 27 of Customs Act.
CESTAT dismissed an appeal concerning refund claims for excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) on mobile phone imports. The tribunal upheld rejection on three grounds: time-bar (claim filed in 2019 for 2014 payments exceeded one-year limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, with no evidence of protest payment), lack of prerequisite reassessment (77 Bills of Entry remained unmodified despite appellant's amendment request), and failure to overcome unjust enrichment presumption (insufficient evidence that duty burden wasn't passed to buyers). The appellant's incomplete CA certificate failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Section 27 of Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
