Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily permit resolution of disputed facts concerning the presence of a Customs Broker during sampling of seized imported industrial oil. The objection to the first sample depended on a factual dispute: the importer denied the representative's presence, while the respondents and sampling report recorded it. The representative's presence during subsequent sampling was admitted. The relevant test report also indicated that the declared industrial oil failed applicable parameters, an issue addressed in an earlier decision. The challenge to seizure was therefore rejected, with no interference warranted on the disputed sampling objection.
Writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily permit resolution of disputed facts concerning the presence of a Customs Broker during sampling of seized imported industrial oil. The objection to the first sample depended on a factual dispute: the importer denied the representative's presence, while the respondents and sampling report recorded it. The representative's presence during subsequent sampling was admitted. The relevant test report also indicated that the declared industrial oil failed applicable parameters, an issue addressed in an earlier decision. The challenge to seizure was therefore rejected, with no interference warranted on the disputed sampling objection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
