Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
The appellant was issued penalty u/r 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, alleging that second stage dealers based in Jaipur were issuing cenvatable invoices to the main noticee without delivering goods, which were purchased from first stage dealers and manufactured by non-existent or non-working manufacturers. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded categorical findings that the main noticee had duly received goods and made duty payment. Tribunal held that when the demand for cenvat credit itself is not maintainable, there is no justification to affirm penalty on the appellant. Following the principles enunciated by Division Bench in Drolia Electrosteel case, where department accepted findings of Commissioner (Appeals), there is no justification to uphold penalty imposition on appellant. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
The appellant was issued penalty u/r 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, alleging that second stage dealers based in Jaipur were issuing cenvatable invoices to the main noticee without delivering goods, which were purchased from first stage dealers and manufactured by non-existent or non-working manufacturers. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded categorical findings that the main noticee had duly received goods and made duty payment. Tribunal held that when the demand for cenvat credit itself is not maintainable, there is no justification to affirm penalty on the appellant. Following the principles enunciated by Division Bench in Drolia Electrosteel case, where department accepted findings of Commissioner (Appeals), there is no justification to uphold penalty imposition on appellant. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
