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 determined refund claim's limitation period starts from final adjudication date (13.10.2015), not provisional assessment date. Refund application filed on 30.11.2015 was within limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act. Regarding unjust enrichment, Chartered Accountant's certificate validly demonstrated duty burden was not passed to customers. Lower authorities erred in dismissing CA certificate without cogent reasons. Appellant's accounting records showed excess duty paid on raw materials was not incorporated into final product costs. CESTAT held appellant entitled to refund as requirements under Section 18 of Customs Act were satisfied and unjust enrichment doctrine not applicable. Appeal allowed with consequential relief.
CESTAT determined refund claim's limitation period starts from final adjudication date (13.10.2015), not provisional assessment date. Refund application filed on 30.11.2015 was within limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act. Regarding unjust enrichment, Chartered Accountant's certificate validly demonstrated duty burden was not passed to customers. Lower authorities erred in dismissing CA certificate without cogent reasons. Appellant's accounting records showed excess duty paid on raw materials was not incorporated into final product costs. CESTAT held appellant entitled to refund as requirements under Section 18 of Customs Act were satisfied and unjust enrichment doctrine not applicable. Appeal allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
