Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Tribunal held that discounts passed by the appellant to dealers do not satisfy the requirement of trade discount for deduction, as the discount is declared for a particular model and the end-user does not receive it, making it arbitrary. Regarding the extended period of limitation, the appellant followed the mechanism of passing incentives/discounts since 2008, and the department raised no objection until after the Tata Motors Ltd. judgment. The demand was computed based on available records, and no suppression or mis-declaration of facts occurred. In the absence of suppression or mis-declaration, the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. Consequently, the demand is barred by limitation. The impugned order is modified, and the appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation only.
The Tribunal held that discounts passed by the appellant to dealers do not satisfy the requirement of trade discount for deduction, as the discount is declared for a particular model and the end-user does not receive it, making it arbitrary. Regarding the extended period of limitation, the appellant followed the mechanism of passing incentives/discounts since 2008, and the department raised no objection until after the Tata Motors Ltd. judgment. The demand was computed based on available records, and no suppression or mis-declaration of facts occurred. In the absence of suppression or mis-declaration, the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. Consequently, the demand is barred by limitation. The impugned order is modified, and the appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation only.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
