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 allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioner's refund claims were filed within time and that the refund granted by the original authority was consequent to the appellate proceedings culminating in the CESTAT remand and final order. The court found the one-year limitation for refund claims runs from date of import/payment provided the procedural prerequisites of Notification No.102/2007-Cus are met, which the petitioner satisfied. The HC rejected respondent's contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required, as that provision applies only where refund follows an order of the specified appellate authorities; accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the refund and the writ is allowed.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioner's refund claims were filed within time and that the refund granted by the original authority was consequent to the appellate proceedings culminating in the CESTAT remand and final order. The court found the one-year limitation for refund claims runs from date of import/payment provided the procedural prerequisites of Notification No.102/2007-Cus are met, which the petitioner satisfied. The HC rejected respondent's contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required, as that provision applies only where refund follows an order of the specified appellate authorities; accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the refund and the writ is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
