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...
Cash refund under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act was held not to be deniable merely because transitional credit was not carried forward in TRAN-1, since an assessee may opt for the more beneficial statutory route and claim refund instead of transition. On the alleged mismatch between ST-3 returns and supporting documents, the Tribunal found the documents reflected input service credit while the return mistakenly showed input credit; as the credit was admittedly availed and the error did not undermine entitlement or indicate mala fides, denial of refund was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Cash refund under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act was held not to be deniable merely because transitional credit was not carried forward in TRAN-1, since an assessee may opt for the more beneficial statutory route and claim refund instead of transition. On the alleged mismatch between ST-3 returns and supporting documents, the Tribunal found the documents reflected input service credit while the return mistakenly showed input credit; as the credit was admittedly availed and the error did not undermine entitlement or indicate mala fides, denial of refund was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.