Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Refund of service tax paid under a claimed mistake of law remained subject to the statutory refund mechanism under section 11B, including the prescribed limitation period and unjust enrichment test. Relying on Mafatlal Industries and Southern Surface Finishers, the CESTAT held that later realisation that tax was not payable did not displace statutory limits, and the assessee failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on to customers. The refund rejection on both limitation and unjust enrichment was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.
Refund of service tax paid under a claimed mistake of law remained subject to the statutory refund mechanism under section 11B, including the prescribed limitation period and unjust enrichment test. Relying on Mafatlal Industries and Southern Surface Finishers, the CESTAT held that later realisation that tax was not payable did not displace statutory limits, and the assessee failed to prove that the tax burden had not been passed on to customers. The refund rejection on both limitation and unjust enrichment was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.