Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT Kolkata held that violation of principles of natural justice occurred due to non-passing of a speaking order u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the declared value without reasons or evidence was deemed improper. The Proper Officer failed to pass a speaking order for enhancement of declared value within the specified timeframe, rendering the enhanced value unsustainable. The adjudicating authority did not provide reasons for rejecting the transaction value u/s 17(5). Consequently, the declared value by the respondent was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
CESTAT Kolkata held that violation of principles of natural justice occurred due to non-passing of a speaking order u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the declared value without reasons or evidence was deemed improper. The Proper Officer failed to pass a speaking order for enhancement of declared value within the specified timeframe, rendering the enhanced value unsustainable. The adjudicating authority did not provide reasons for rejecting the transaction value u/s 17(5). Consequently, the declared value by the respondent was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
