Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Investigation revealed fraudulent Cenvat Credit claims involving fake invoices without actual supply of goods from April 2016 to June 2017. Evidence indicated non-supply of goods from various parties to M/s. Ridhi Sidhi. However, the department failed to establish non-supply of goods from M/s. Ridhi Sidhi to the appellants. Appellants produced documentary evidence including transport receipts, payment proofs, goods receipt proofs, and output records indicating actual receipt of goods. Department did not rebut this evidence with credible contrary proof. Department's stance was based on presumptions and assumptions. Failure to record statements of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi's proprietor/director/authorized person and denial of cross-examination opportunity weakened department's case. Cumulatively, department failed to establish a case against appellants, making them eligible for relief. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Investigation revealed fraudulent Cenvat Credit claims involving fake invoices without actual supply of goods from April 2016 to June 2017. Evidence indicated non-supply of goods from various parties to M/s. Ridhi Sidhi. However, the department failed to establish non-supply of goods from M/s. Ridhi Sidhi to the appellants. Appellants produced documentary evidence including transport receipts, payment proofs, goods receipt proofs, and output records indicating actual receipt of goods. Department did not rebut this evidence with credible contrary proof. Department's stance was based on presumptions and assumptions. Failure to record statements of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi's proprietor/director/authorized person and denial of cross-examination opportunity weakened department's case. Cumulatively, department failed to establish a case against appellants, making them eligible for relief. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
