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 dismissed the Department's appeal challenging entitlement to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act in respect of refund of additional customs duty under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, holding the appeal untenable. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request to keep the matter in abeyance pending a higher forum's appeal, explaining that pending proceedings in a superior court do not automatically preclude adjudication in the appellate forum absent a stay. Applying and respectfully following the ratio of the Madras HC decision in the respondent's own case, and noting no stay had been shown, the Tribunal held the respondent entitled to interest from three months after filing the refund claim and set aside the departmental appeal.
CESTAT dismissed the Department's appeal challenging entitlement to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act in respect of refund of additional customs duty under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, holding the appeal untenable. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request to keep the matter in abeyance pending a higher forum's appeal, explaining that pending proceedings in a superior court do not automatically preclude adjudication in the appellate forum absent a stay. Applying and respectfully following the ratio of the Madras HC decision in the respondent's own case, and noting no stay had been shown, the Tribunal held the respondent entitled to interest from three months after filing the refund claim and set aside the departmental appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
