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 dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) order insofar as merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) are concerned, noting the forfeiture of the EMD was effected by the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction treating the dispute as contractual. In the exercise of discretion, the HC permitted the Petitioner to institute an appeal before CESTAT contesting both the refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 7 July 2025; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and both orders annexed. CESTAT is directed to admit and adjudicate the appeal on merits, including whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed.
The HC dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) order insofar as merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) are concerned, noting the forfeiture of the EMD was effected by the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction treating the dispute as contractual. In the exercise of discretion, the HC permitted the Petitioner to institute an appeal before CESTAT contesting both the refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 7 July 2025; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and both orders annexed. CESTAT is directed to admit and adjudicate the appeal on merits, including whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
