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 held that the department improperly attempted to reopen a previously settled refund claim through piecemeal adjudication. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of res judicata, noting that Revenue failed to challenge the First Appellate Authority's order which had partially allowed the appellant's claim. The department's subsequent review violated judicial discipline and fundamental principles of justice administration. The Tribunal emphasized that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject matter between the same parties, and that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause. The impugned order was set aside, with the appeals allowed and consequential relief granted to the appellant.
CESTAT held that the department improperly attempted to reopen a previously settled refund claim through piecemeal adjudication. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of res judicata, noting that Revenue failed to challenge the First Appellate Authority's order which had partially allowed the appellant's claim. The department's subsequent review violated judicial discipline and fundamental principles of justice administration. The Tribunal emphasized that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject matter between the same parties, and that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause. The impugned order was set aside, with the appeals allowed and consequential relief granted to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.