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 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Clandestine Removal - allegation of two sets of invoices - admissible evidences - it is found that the department has not complied with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 while retrieving the data from the hard disc. The provision does not say that if the documents are sent to Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, it would become admissible. Further, such documents have been compared with the photocopies of the printouts sent by the Income Tax Department to the Central Excise investigating officers. Such documents cannot be relied for confirmation of duty, when obtained without following the mandate under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - AT
Clandestine Removal - allegation of two sets of invoices - admissible evidences - it is found that the department has not complied with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 while retrieving the data from the hard disc. The provision does not say that if the documents are sent to Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, it would become admissible. Further, such documents have been compared with the photocopies of the printouts sent by the Income Tax Department to the Central Excise investigating officers. Such documents cannot be relied for confirmation of duty, when obtained without following the mandate under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
