Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant manufactured polyester staple fiber (PSF) using PET bottles scrap (90%) and popcorn waste (less than 10%). The department denied the nil/concessional duty benefit under relevant notifications, alleging popcorn is not plastic waste and the appellant suppressed facts. The Tribunal held that in the absence of words like 'only', 'exclusively' in the notifications, the benefit cannot be denied merely for using a small quantity of popcorn waste along with PET bottles scrap. Popcorn being manufactured from plastic waste/scrap, cannot be excluded from the notifications' scope. Regarding extended period of limitation, the Tribunal held that mere non-disclosure is not suppression unless deliberate to evade duty. The appellant disclosed using popcorn in statements/returns, hence no suppression. The department failed to establish the appellant deliberately suppressed facts to evade duty, thus extended period was wrongly invoked. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The penalty on the Director was also questioned as the department failed to prove the Director dealt with confiscatable goods knowingly.
The appellant manufactured polyester staple fiber (PSF) using PET bottles scrap (90%) and popcorn waste (less than 10%). The department denied the nil/concessional duty benefit under relevant notifications, alleging popcorn is not plastic waste and the appellant suppressed facts. The Tribunal held that in the absence of words like 'only', 'exclusively' in the notifications, the benefit cannot be denied merely for using a small quantity of popcorn waste along with PET bottles scrap. Popcorn being manufactured from plastic waste/scrap, cannot be excluded from the notifications' scope. Regarding extended period of limitation, the Tribunal held that mere non-disclosure is not suppression unless deliberate to evade duty. The appellant disclosed using popcorn in statements/returns, hence no suppression. The department failed to establish the appellant deliberately suppressed facts to evade duty, thus extended period was wrongly invoked. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The penalty on the Director was also questioned as the department failed to prove the Director dealt with confiscatable goods knowingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
