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 customs duty deposited during investigation was denied on unjust enrichment on the ground that the amount was booked as expenditure in the profit and loss account. This was held to be an incorrect test; the determinative inquiry is whether the duty incidence was passed to customers through enhanced sale price. As the invoices reflected only material cost, labour charges and VAT, with no recovery of customs duty, and there was no evidence of post-duty price increase, the burden was held not to have been passed on, making unjust enrichment inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside and refund was allowed. - CESTAT
Refund of customs duty deposited during investigation was denied on unjust enrichment on the ground that the amount was booked as expenditure in the profit and loss account. This was held to be an incorrect test; the determinative inquiry is whether the duty incidence was passed to customers through enhanced sale price. As the invoices reflected only material cost, labour charges and VAT, with no recovery of customs duty, and there was no evidence of post-duty price increase, the burden was held not to have been passed on, making unjust enrichment inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside and refund was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.