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 anti-dumping duty paid before rescission was upheld because the rescinding notification expressly applied only prospectively and preserved things done before rescission. The Court noted that duty payments made before 29.02.2012 fell within that saving clause, and the Designated Authority's final findings had recorded no adverse impact on the domestic industry, no price suppression or depression, and no justification for continued anti-dumping duty on phenol from Chinese Taipei and the USA. In view of those findings, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refund order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Refund of anti-dumping duty paid before rescission was upheld because the rescinding notification expressly applied only prospectively and preserved things done before rescission. The Court noted that duty payments made before 29.02.2012 fell within that saving clause, and the Designated Authority's final findings had recorded no adverse impact on the domestic industry, no price suppression or depression, and no justification for continued anti-dumping duty on phenol from Chinese Taipei and the USA. In view of those findings, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refund order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
