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...
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
