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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A customs exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus, entry 13S, could not be denied merely because the importer did not follow the IGCR procedural requirements or furnish the prescribed undertaking, where the record showed the goods were only traded and not used in manufacture of excluded products. The Tribunal treated the exemption condition as aimed at preventing such manufacture and held that its substantive purpose was satisfied on the facts, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. It also rejected the objection that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the show cause notice, since the condition was reproduced there and the importer had put the exemption entry in issue. The duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
A customs exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus, entry 13S, could not be denied merely because the importer did not follow the IGCR procedural requirements or furnish the prescribed undertaking, where the record showed the goods were only traded and not used in manufacture of excluded products. The Tribunal treated the exemption condition as aimed at preventing such manufacture and held that its substantive purpose was satisfied on the facts, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. It also rejected the objection that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the show cause notice, since the condition was reproduced there and the importer had put the exemption entry in issue. The duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
