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...
Provisional anti-dumping duty collected on import of copper clad laminates was held refundable once the provisional levy was withdrawn without confirmation. The Tribunal noted that Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Rules required refund of any collection made between imposition and withdrawal, and that a separate refund application was not a basis to defeat the claim. It further held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be imported to deny refund under this rule, and that treatment of the amount as expenditure in the books or the absence of a receivable entry did not by itself establish unjust enrichment. The appellate order was set aside and refund with applicable interest was directed.
Provisional anti-dumping duty collected on import of copper clad laminates was held refundable once the provisional levy was withdrawn without confirmation. The Tribunal noted that Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Rules required refund of any collection made between imposition and withdrawal, and that a separate refund application was not a basis to defeat the claim. It further held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be imported to deny refund under this rule, and that treatment of the amount as expenditure in the books or the absence of a receivable entry did not by itself establish unjust enrichment. The appellate order was set aside and refund with applicable interest was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.