Inaccurate-particulars penalties fail where transfer-pricing documentation shows good faith and due diligence, and underlying capital-gains additions ...
Transfer-pricing tolerance for software sub-licensing falls within the services range, eliminating the adjustment and requiring TDS-credit verificatio...
Customs Broker due diligence requires prescribed KYC, not detecting misdeclarations discoverable only through physical examination, defeating licence ...
E-filing system failure permits exclusion of affected time in insolvency appeals, preventing tribunal technology defects from defeating timely filings...
Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 97755 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed exemption for paints applied on wind mills, considering them an integral part of the wind operated electricity generator, covered under the exemption notification. It rejected the argument that paint is merely an external coating and not a component or part. The Tribunal reasoned that paint acts like skin, essential for protection and integral to the product. Disallowing exemption for paint would be akin to removing skin from a living being. The Tribunal distinguished the Bombay High Court order cited by the Department, stating its limited writ jurisdiction is different from the appellate jurisdiction of CESTAT. The Commissioner's order denying exemption was set aside.
The CESTAT allowed exemption for paints applied on wind mills, considering them an integral part of the wind operated electricity generator, covered under the exemption notification. It rejected the argument that paint is merely an external coating and not a component or part. The Tribunal reasoned that paint acts like skin, essential for protection and integral to the product. Disallowing exemption for paint would be akin to removing skin from a living being. The Tribunal distinguished the Bombay High Court order cited by the Department, stating its limited writ jurisdiction is different from the appellate jurisdiction of CESTAT. The Commissioner's order denying exemption was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
