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 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.