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...
The central issue is whether the bar of unjust enrichment under show cause proceedings prevents refund of duty on cash and quantity discounts; the tribunal's earlier orders became final and therefore bar recovery, entitling the taxpayer to refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting chartered accountant certificates and dealer affidavits showing duty incidence was not passed on; absence of contrary evidence meant those certificates were admissible and probative, so refunds must be allowed. Consequently, amounts challenged as erroneously refunded cannot be recovered where final tribunal decisions and acceptable evidence establish no unjust enrichment.
The central issue is whether the bar of unjust enrichment under show cause proceedings prevents refund of duty on cash and quantity discounts; the tribunal's earlier orders became final and therefore bar recovery, entitling the taxpayer to refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting chartered accountant certificates and dealer affidavits showing duty incidence was not passed on; absence of contrary evidence meant those certificates were admissible and probative, so refunds must be allowed. Consequently, amounts challenged as erroneously refunded cannot be recovered where final tribunal decisions and acceptable evidence establish no unjust enrichment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.