Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
