Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
IGST exemption at the time of import of input materials by the appellant - Advance Authorization Scheme - The Tribunal acknowledged that while the Advance Authorization was initially issued under Notification No. 18/2005, it was subsequently revised to Notification No. 21/2015. However, considering the appellant's use of the imported goods for manufacturing final products that were exported, and the issuance of discharge certificates by the DGFT confirming export obligations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Additionally, it noted the contributory negligence on the part of Revenue for allowing IGST exemption under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand for IGST exemption was not sustainable.
IGST exemption at the time of import of input materials by the appellant - Advance Authorization Scheme - The Tribunal acknowledged that while the Advance Authorization was initially issued under Notification No. 18/2005, it was subsequently revised to Notification No. 21/2015. However, considering the appellant's use of the imported goods for manufacturing final products that were exported, and the issuance of discharge certificates by the DGFT confirming export obligations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Additionally, it noted the contributory negligence on the part of Revenue for allowing IGST exemption under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand for IGST exemption was not sustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
