Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Employee travel, hospitality, conveyance, tickets, goods, and hotel boarding expenses were held to fall within the statutory heads of fringe benefits under section 115WB(1)(b) read with section 115WB(2), so the Tribunal upheld the quantum assessment on those items. The Commissioner (Appeals) was also found to have issued only a limited consequential direction to verify tax already paid and finalise computation, not an impermissible fresh remand on merits. On penalty, the Tribunal sustained cancellation under section 271(1)(d), holding that rejection of the assessee's exclusion claim in quantum proceedings did not by itself establish inaccurate particulars, following Reliance Petroproducts.
Employee travel, hospitality, conveyance, tickets, goods, and hotel boarding expenses were held to fall within the statutory heads of fringe benefits under section 115WB(1)(b) read with section 115WB(2), so the Tribunal upheld the quantum assessment on those items. The Commissioner (Appeals) was also found to have issued only a limited consequential direction to verify tax already paid and finalise computation, not an impermissible fresh remand on merits. On penalty, the Tribunal sustained cancellation under section 271(1)(d), holding that rejection of the assessee's exclusion claim in quantum proceedings did not by itself establish inaccurate particulars, following Reliance Petroproducts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.