Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether refund of excess additional duty of customs could be rejected on the ground that it did not arise from a valid reassessment as required under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 in light of ITC Ltd. The Tribunal held that self-assessment under Section 17, reassessment under Sections 17/128, and amendments/corrections under Sections 149/154 constitute "assessment" for Section 27 purposes, and that a speaking reassessment order had in fact been passed but was ignored by the appellate authority. Consequently, the rejection of the refund was legally unsustainable and was set aside, restoring entitlement to refund. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether refund of excess additional duty of customs could be rejected on the ground that it did not arise from a valid reassessment as required under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 in light of ITC Ltd. The Tribunal held that self-assessment under Section 17, reassessment under Sections 17/128, and amendments/corrections under Sections 149/154 constitute "assessment" for Section 27 purposes, and that a speaking reassessment order had in fact been passed but was ignored by the appellate authority. Consequently, the rejection of the refund was legally unsustainable and was set aside, restoring entitlement to refund. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.