Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Levy of penalty u/r 26 on the Director of the company - Allegation of Clandestine removal of goods - The Tribunal observed that the statement of an employee, admitting to supplying goods, did not specify quantities, values, or payments, making it insufficient as evidence. - Further, The adjudicating authority did not cross-examine the employee, as required under Section 9 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Without cross-examination, the employee's statement could not be relied upon as evidence. - No penalty - AT
Levy of penalty u/r 26 on the Director of the company - Allegation of Clandestine removal of goods - The Tribunal observed that the statement of an employee, admitting to supplying goods, did not specify quantities, values, or payments, making it insufficient as evidence. - Further, The adjudicating authority did not cross-examine the employee, as required under Section 9 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Without cross-examination, the employee's statement could not be relied upon as evidence. - No penalty - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
