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...
The High Court addressed the issue of rectification of an order by the CESTAT, which rejected an application filed u/s 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key question was whether the discount received by a bank from automobile dealers could be considered as a consideration for service. The Court held that a previous decision by the CESTAT was rendered per incuriam as it did not consider earlier decisions of equal strength. The Court noted the lack of specific references to contradictory decisions in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
The High Court addressed the issue of rectification of an order by the CESTAT, which rejected an application filed u/s 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key question was whether the discount received by a bank from automobile dealers could be considered as a consideration for service. The Court held that a previous decision by the CESTAT was rendered per incuriam as it did not consider earlier decisions of equal strength. The Court noted the lack of specific references to contradictory decisions in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
