Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
