Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Estoppel by conduct was applied where the petitioner voluntarily paid differential customs duty during a DRI investigation, sought closure and remained silent thereafter; the Court held this conduct barred a subsequent refund claim. The Court held Notification No.25/2019-Customs and the Finance Act amendment operate prospectively and do not alter duty lawfully incurred on 2014-2017 imports. Because payment was voluntary and investigation closure was accepted, no show cause notice was required, and the refund failed for lack of evidence negating unjust enrichment.
Estoppel by conduct was applied where the petitioner voluntarily paid differential customs duty during a DRI investigation, sought closure and remained silent thereafter; the Court held this conduct barred a subsequent refund claim. The Court held Notification No.25/2019-Customs and the Finance Act amendment operate prospectively and do not alter duty lawfully incurred on 2014-2017 imports. Because payment was voluntary and investigation closure was accepted, no show cause notice was required, and the refund failed for lack of evidence negating unjust enrichment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
