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 held that the appellant, an importer from Malaysia, cleared goods on payment of merit rate of duty as Certificates of Origin (COO) were not available at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. Upon subsequent receipt of COOs, the appellant sought refund invoking preferential duty, but the Refund-Sanctioning Officer's prolonged inaction rendered that remedy ineffective. Tribunal applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act, holding that time spent bona fide and diligently before an ineffectual forum is to be excluded while computing limitation. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication by a reasoned, speaking order after hearing the appellant.
CESTAT held that the appellant, an importer from Malaysia, cleared goods on payment of merit rate of duty as Certificates of Origin (COO) were not available at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. Upon subsequent receipt of COOs, the appellant sought refund invoking preferential duty, but the Refund-Sanctioning Officer's prolonged inaction rendered that remedy ineffective. Tribunal applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act, holding that time spent bona fide and diligently before an ineffectual forum is to be excluded while computing limitation. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication by a reasoned, speaking order after hearing the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
