Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court expressed concerns over the Revenue's representative's contradictory statements regarding the availability of test reports issued by IRMRA during the main appeal hearing and the subsequent rectification application hearing before the Tribunal. The Court directed the Joint Chief Department Representative, Mumbai Bench CESTAT, to conduct a detailed inquiry into how such an incident occurred, identify the responsible individuals, and report to the Court on the disciplinary actions taken or proposed against those from the Revenue Department, as well as any actions against private individuals involved. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the matter, considering the high financial stakes and the series of appellants before the Tribunal.
The High Court expressed concerns over the Revenue's representative's contradictory statements regarding the availability of test reports issued by IRMRA during the main appeal hearing and the subsequent rectification application hearing before the Tribunal. The Court directed the Joint Chief Department Representative, Mumbai Bench CESTAT, to conduct a detailed inquiry into how such an incident occurred, identify the responsible individuals, and report to the Court on the disciplinary actions taken or proposed against those from the Revenue Department, as well as any actions against private individuals involved. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the matter, considering the high financial stakes and the series of appellants before the Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
