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...
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside demands for interest. It held the appellant had lawfully opted for special rates under Para 2D and refunds must be computed per the subsequently fixed special rate; after adjustment only a net excess refund of Rs.50,96,571 remained. Recovery of interest on the entire provisional refund was declared untenable. The tribunal found the interest demand was raised without issuance of a show-cause notice under s.11A CEA, breaching principles of natural justice, and noted s.11AA CEA lacks the specific erroneous-refund interest provision formerly in s.11AB. Invocation of a surety bond without first raising statutory demand was also impermissible. No interest was payable on the net excess repaid on 21.03.2023.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside demands for interest. It held the appellant had lawfully opted for special rates under Para 2D and refunds must be computed per the subsequently fixed special rate; after adjustment only a net excess refund of Rs.50,96,571 remained. Recovery of interest on the entire provisional refund was declared untenable. The tribunal found the interest demand was raised without issuance of a show-cause notice under s.11A CEA, breaching principles of natural justice, and noted s.11AA CEA lacks the specific erroneous-refund interest provision formerly in s.11AB. Invocation of a surety bond without first raising statutory demand was also impermissible. No interest was payable on the net excess repaid on 21.03.2023.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
