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 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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, engaged in manufacturing SS Hose Assembly, Flange & Fittings, also procured MS Round, TMT Bars, etc., performed work on them, and cleared them to buyers after availing CENVAT credit on inputs. The entire CENVAT credit was reversed upon clearance to buyers. The demand of Rs. 1,46,75,425/- towards CENVAT credit and u/s 11D indicates the credit was properly reversed. The goods' clearance falls u/r 3(5) of CCR, 2004 rather than finished goods clearance. The appellant provided documentary evidence of receiving goods, accounting in books, and banking channel payments. The CESTAT held that denying CENVAT credit was unjustified. Regarding time limitation, the show cause notice was issued belatedly in 2013 for transactions during 2008-10, which were part of ER-1 returns relied upon. No suppression was established, making the demand time-barred. The appeals were allowed on merits and time bar.
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing SS Hose Assembly, Flange & Fittings, also procured MS Round, TMT Bars, etc., performed work on them, and cleared them to buyers after availing CENVAT credit on inputs. The entire CENVAT credit was reversed upon clearance to buyers. The demand of Rs. 1,46,75,425/- towards CENVAT credit and u/s 11D indicates the credit was properly reversed. The goods' clearance falls u/r 3(5) of CCR, 2004 rather than finished goods clearance. The appellant provided documentary evidence of receiving goods, accounting in books, and banking channel payments. The CESTAT held that denying CENVAT credit was unjustified. Regarding time limitation, the show cause notice was issued belatedly in 2013 for transactions during 2008-10, which were part of ER-1 returns relied upon. No suppression was established, making the demand time-barred. The appeals were allowed on merits and time bar.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
