Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The HC dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging a tribunal order regarding time limitation for refund claims under customs law. The court upheld the tribunal's decision that the one-year limitation period under Section 27(1B)(c) commences from the date of final assessment rather than from the date of provisional duty payment. The HC agreed with precedent establishing that where assessment is provisional, the refund application timeline must be calculated from finalization of assessment, not initial duty payment. The court found no substantial question of law arose from the tribunal's order, which correctly applied statutory provisions over contrary interpretations of Notification No. 93/2008. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the taxpayer's position on refund claim timing requirements.
The HC dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging a tribunal order regarding time limitation for refund claims under customs law. The court upheld the tribunal's decision that the one-year limitation period under Section 27(1B)(c) commences from the date of final assessment rather than from the date of provisional duty payment. The HC agreed with precedent establishing that where assessment is provisional, the refund application timeline must be calculated from finalization of assessment, not initial duty payment. The court found no substantial question of law arose from the tribunal's order, which correctly applied statutory provisions over contrary interpretations of Notification No. 93/2008. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the taxpayer's position on refund claim timing requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.