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 allowed the appeal by remand, holding that reassessment paid under protest and subsequent refund claims preclude treating the liability as unprotested; the Department failed to demonstrate written agreement to reassessment by the importer. The Tribunal ruled that, absent contrary evidence, the party's asserted date of receipt of the speaking order governs computation of the appeal period under Section 17(5), and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the appeal time-barred. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to accept the claimed date of receipt, entertain the statutory protest rights, and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The decision accords binding weight to later authoritative precedent.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal by remand, holding that reassessment paid under protest and subsequent refund claims preclude treating the liability as unprotested; the Department failed to demonstrate written agreement to reassessment by the importer. The Tribunal ruled that, absent contrary evidence, the party's asserted date of receipt of the speaking order governs computation of the appeal period under Section 17(5), and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the appeal time-barred. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to accept the claimed date of receipt, entertain the statutory protest rights, and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The decision accords binding weight to later authoritative precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.