Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves a dispute regarding clandestine removal of goods by an Appellant company. The Appellate Tribunal held that the allegation of clandestine removal and suppression of facts failed as no evidence of unaccounted purchases or sales was presented. The Tribunal found that the determination of suppressed quantities based on maximum installed capacity was unsubstantiated. The Tribunal also noted that the Department's withdrawal of a previous letter indicated a lack of clarity regarding the recording of goods. The Tribunal pointed out that normal industry factors were ignored in determining maximum capacity. Ultimately, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The case involves a dispute regarding clandestine removal of goods by an Appellant company. The Appellate Tribunal held that the allegation of clandestine removal and suppression of facts failed as no evidence of unaccounted purchases or sales was presented. The Tribunal found that the determination of suppressed quantities based on maximum installed capacity was unsubstantiated. The Tribunal also noted that the Department's withdrawal of a previous letter indicated a lack of clarity regarding the recording of goods. The Tribunal pointed out that normal industry factors were ignored in determining maximum capacity. Ultimately, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
