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...
The CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal against refund granted to a 100% EOU. The Tribunal held that Revenue improperly issued SCNs under Section 73 without first revising the refund orders under Section 84, which was the mandatory procedure per the Delhi HC ruling in BT India. The Tribunal determined that questioning the nexus between input and output services during refund proceedings was improper, as eligibility for credit must be determined separately before refund claims. Additionally, procedural issues like non-production of original FIRCs or invoice discrepancies should not prevent substantive benefits. The extended period of limitation was invalid as SCNs were issued beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 84.
The CESTAT dismissed Revenue's appeal against refund granted to a 100% EOU. The Tribunal held that Revenue improperly issued SCNs under Section 73 without first revising the refund orders under Section 84, which was the mandatory procedure per the Delhi HC ruling in BT India. The Tribunal determined that questioning the nexus between input and output services during refund proceedings was improper, as eligibility for credit must be determined separately before refund claims. Additionally, procedural issues like non-production of original FIRCs or invoice discrepancies should not prevent substantive benefits. The extended period of limitation was invalid as SCNs were issued beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 84.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
