Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The High Court considered a case regarding the refund of terminal benefits of excise duty for deemed exports u/s Sl.No.511 of N/N.12/2012-cus. The petitioner, a successful bidder for a construction project, argued that deemed exports are entitled to the same benefits as physical exports. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the Terminal Excise Duty (TED) as per the contract terms, supported by relevant documents. The court held that the petitioner's claim cannot be rejected solely on the grounds that the goods supplied do not qualify as deemed exports. The court quashed the impugned order, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
The High Court considered a case regarding the refund of terminal benefits of excise duty for deemed exports u/s Sl.No.511 of N/N.12/2012-cus. The petitioner, a successful bidder for a construction project, argued that deemed exports are entitled to the same benefits as physical exports. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the Terminal Excise Duty (TED) as per the contract terms, supported by relevant documents. The court held that the petitioner's claim cannot be rejected solely on the grounds that the goods supplied do not qualify as deemed exports. The court quashed the impugned order, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
