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...
The adhoc exemption order did not restrict the use of floodlights solely for World Cup matches; it aimed to uplift the stadium's infrastructure standards. The department erroneously assumed that World Cup matches were non-commercial, while one-day internationals were commercial. The exemption order made no such distinction. The show cause notice lacked factual or legal basis for alleging a violation of condition (ii). Regarding time limitation, the notice did not allege suppression of facts or intention to evade customs duty. The department issued the notice after collecting documents from the appellant, indicating no suppression. With a lapse of over 7 years, the demand was time-barred as the proviso to Section 28(1) was not applicable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The adhoc exemption order did not restrict the use of floodlights solely for World Cup matches; it aimed to uplift the stadium's infrastructure standards. The department erroneously assumed that World Cup matches were non-commercial, while one-day internationals were commercial. The exemption order made no such distinction. The show cause notice lacked factual or legal basis for alleging a violation of condition (ii). Regarding time limitation, the notice did not allege suppression of facts or intention to evade customs duty. The department issued the notice after collecting documents from the appellant, indicating no suppression. With a lapse of over 7 years, the demand was time-barred as the proviso to Section 28(1) was not applicable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
