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, holding that the appellants discharged the statutory burden under s.27, Customs Act, 1962, by producing a Chartered Accountant's certificate and record evidence demonstrating that imported goods were sold below cost. The Tribunal applied the principle that such admissible proof shifts the onus to the revenue to adduce affirmative evidence that duty was passed on to buyers. The revenue failed to rebut the presumption of non-passing-on or to establish recovery of duty-inclusive prices; consequently the bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable. Relief was granted to the appellants and the refunds sought were thereby held admissible.
CESTAT allowed the appeals, holding that the appellants discharged the statutory burden under s.27, Customs Act, 1962, by producing a Chartered Accountant's certificate and record evidence demonstrating that imported goods were sold below cost. The Tribunal applied the principle that such admissible proof shifts the onus to the revenue to adduce affirmative evidence that duty was passed on to buyers. The revenue failed to rebut the presumption of non-passing-on or to establish recovery of duty-inclusive prices; consequently the bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable. Relief was granted to the appellants and the refunds sought were thereby held admissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.