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...
Refund of accumulated unutilised ITC was denied on the premise that refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act is unavailable where the input and output are the same and the rate comparison should be confined to the principal input vis-Ã -vis principal output. Relying on binding precedent, it was held that Section 54(3)(ii) does not bar refund merely because input and output are identical, and the proviso does not require comparing only the tax rate on the principal input with that on the principal output supply; nor can refund be restricted only to cases where the main input rate exceeds the principal output rate. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the refund claim was allowed. - HC
Refund of accumulated unutilised ITC was denied on the premise that refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act is unavailable where the input and output are the same and the rate comparison should be confined to the principal input vis-Ã -vis principal output. Relying on binding precedent, it was held that Section 54(3)(ii) does not bar refund merely because input and output are identical, and the proviso does not require comparing only the tax rate on the principal input with that on the principal output supply; nor can refund be restricted only to cases where the main input rate exceeds the principal output rate. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the refund claim was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.