Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Clandestine removal demand based on electrical consumption was challenged. Average electricity consumption for certain periods was calculated. Cross-examination of officials whose statements were relied upon was denied, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal consistently rejected electricity consumption-based quantification using Dr. Batra's formula. However, in this case, the Revenue calculated actual average consumption without using the formula. The appellant's argument regarding applicability of case law was rejected. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon, contrary to the High Court's ruling allowing such cross-examination. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to provide the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination.
Clandestine removal demand based on electrical consumption was challenged. Average electricity consumption for certain periods was calculated. Cross-examination of officials whose statements were relied upon was denied, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal consistently rejected electricity consumption-based quantification using Dr. Batra's formula. However, in this case, the Revenue calculated actual average consumption without using the formula. The appellant's argument regarding applicability of case law was rejected. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon, contrary to the High Court's ruling allowing such cross-examination. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to provide the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
