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 allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
CESTAT allowed refund of service tax paid twice for April-June 2017 period, ruling that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 does not apply. The Tribunal held that when service tax is paid twice - first legally and second inadvertently - the second payment lacks legal basis as there is no taxable event. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and earlier CESTAT rulings, it was determined that time-bar provisions are inapplicable for amounts paid under mistaken notion where no tax liability existed. The impugned order was set aside and refund claim allowed, as duplicate payment cannot be considered as tax/duty under Section 11B.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.