Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Refund of redemption fine paid only because of an unlawful departmental insistence was held allowable, as the Tribunal found that payment was not made under SVLDRS itself but was extracted as a precondition for processing the declaration. Relying on Gujarat High Court authority, the Tribunal held that such a demand was legally untenable and that the amount could not be denied refund on the footing that it formed part of the scheme payment. The sum was treated as a pre-deposit-like payment, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply once the claim was otherwise justified. The rejection orders were set aside and consequential relief granted.
Refund of redemption fine paid only because of an unlawful departmental insistence was held allowable, as the Tribunal found that payment was not made under SVLDRS itself but was extracted as a precondition for processing the declaration. Relying on Gujarat High Court authority, the Tribunal held that such a demand was legally untenable and that the amount could not be denied refund on the footing that it formed part of the scheme payment. The sum was treated as a pre-deposit-like payment, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply once the claim was otherwise justified. The rejection orders were set aside and consequential relief granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
