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...
The imported Clear Float Glass is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as per Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70, rather than under CTH 7005 2990 as reclassified by the Department. The issue of classification is no longer res integra, as it has been elaborately dealt with in the case of M/S. BAGRECHA ENTERPRISES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA. The Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation, as the issue was known to the revenue, and the assessments underwent provisional assessment and subsequent finalization for the same product. Invoking the extended period for demand of duty or imposition of mandatory penalty is not sustainable, as the appellant did not suppress or misdeclare any facts. The imported Clear Float Glass is eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, being classifiable under CTH 7005 1090. The impugned Order-in-Original is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
The imported Clear Float Glass is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as per Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70, rather than under CTH 7005 2990 as reclassified by the Department. The issue of classification is no longer res integra, as it has been elaborately dealt with in the case of M/S. BAGRECHA ENTERPRISES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA. The Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation, as the issue was known to the revenue, and the assessments underwent provisional assessment and subsequent finalization for the same product. Invoking the extended period for demand of duty or imposition of mandatory penalty is not sustainable, as the appellant did not suppress or misdeclare any facts. The imported Clear Float Glass is eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, being classifiable under CTH 7005 1090. The impugned Order-in-Original is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
