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 SC held that the Appellant was competent to notify the Interim Coal Policy and to fix interim prices; the 20% surcharge for linked non-core consumers was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The High Court's reliance on earlier provincial authority was rejected as unsustainable. On unjust enrichment, the Court held claimants bore the onus to prove they had not passed the additional cost to third parties; absence of such evidence before the High Court vitiated their refund claim, though limited discretion was exercised to permit relevant documents in appeal. The High Court's order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and no refund was directed.
The SC held that the Appellant was competent to notify the Interim Coal Policy and to fix interim prices; the 20% surcharge for linked non-core consumers was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The High Court's reliance on earlier provincial authority was rejected as unsustainable. On unjust enrichment, the Court held claimants bore the onus to prove they had not passed the additional cost to third parties; absence of such evidence before the High Court vitiated their refund claim, though limited discretion was exercised to permit relevant documents in appeal. The High Court's order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and no refund was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.