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 and set aside the impugned order, holding the appellant entitled to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit paid on input services used for export of services. The Tribunal accepted proof of export and inward remittances and applied Board guidance that one-to-one correlation between export invoices and FIRCs is not requisite for refund. It further rejected denial based on asserted lack of nexus between input and output services, finding such a ground insufficient to withhold refund where credit availing is otherwise not impeached. The Tribunal also held the relevant date for limitation may be the quarter-end when FIRCs are received for quarterly refund filings, negating delay objections.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding the appellant entitled to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit paid on input services used for export of services. The Tribunal accepted proof of export and inward remittances and applied Board guidance that one-to-one correlation between export invoices and FIRCs is not requisite for refund. It further rejected denial based on asserted lack of nexus between input and output services, finding such a ground insufficient to withhold refund where credit availing is otherwise not impeached. The Tribunal also held the relevant date for limitation may be the quarter-end when FIRCs are received for quarterly refund filings, negating delay objections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.