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...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Extended limitation for a customs demand was not available where the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the dispute concerned a technical claim for notification benefit; mere claim of misclassification or benefit under the notification did not amount to suppression or wilful misstatement when the imports as CKD condition were disclosed in the Bills of Entry and invoices. Differential duty could not be recovered by reopening self-assessed Bills of Entry without first challenging that assessment. Redemption fine also failed because the goods had already been cleared and were not available for confiscation. With the principal demand unsustainable, interest and penalty were likewise set aside.
Extended limitation for a customs demand was not available where the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the dispute concerned a technical claim for notification benefit; mere claim of misclassification or benefit under the notification did not amount to suppression or wilful misstatement when the imports as CKD condition were disclosed in the Bills of Entry and invoices. Differential duty could not be recovered by reopening self-assessed Bills of Entry without first challenging that assessment. Redemption fine also failed because the goods had already been cleared and were not available for confiscation. With the principal demand unsustainable, interest and penalty were likewise set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.