Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
The respondent authority failed to provide reasons for levying...
Transfer of goods between own units without sale shouldn't attract interest/penalty. Authorities must give reasons as per CBIC circular & court precedents.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The respondent authority failed to provide reasons for levying interest and penalty, despite the goods being transferred between the petitioner's establishments, not sold. The court relied on CBIC's circular and previous judgments in Dhabriya Polywood Ltd. and Orson Holdings Company Ltd., which granted benefit of doubt and considered lack of ill-intent, respectively. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh de novo order, assigning detailed reasons after hearing the petitioner, considering the cited decisions.
The respondent authority failed to provide reasons for levying interest and penalty, despite the goods being transferred between the petitioner's establishments, not sold. The court relied on CBIC's circular and previous judgments in Dhabriya Polywood Ltd. and Orson Holdings Company Ltd., which granted benefit of doubt and considered lack of ill-intent, respectively. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh de novo order, assigning detailed reasons after hearing the petitioner, considering the cited decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
