Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4789
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95770 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates cross-examination of witnesses before admitting statements as evidence against appellant. Adjudicating authority rejected request for cross-examination, rendering witness statements inadmissible. Reliance solely on loose papers/dispatch chits insufficient to establish clandestine removal. Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence noted. Separate penalty on partners of firm impermissible per precedent. Demand and penalties set aside due to lack of admissible evidence proving clandestine removal beyond doubt. Appeal allowed.
Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates cross-examination of witnesses before admitting statements as evidence against appellant. Adjudicating authority rejected request for cross-examination, rendering witness statements inadmissible. Reliance solely on loose papers/dispatch chits insufficient to establish clandestine removal. Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence noted. Separate penalty on partners of firm impermissible per precedent. Demand and penalties set aside due to lack of admissible evidence proving clandestine removal beyond doubt. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4789
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
