Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
