Trademark depreciation and section 14A adjustments: ITAT applies consistency, independent book-profit computation, and no disallowance without exempt ...
Rebuttable search presumptions and corroboration standards shaped deletion of unsubstantiated additions, while rental income and limited profit estima...
Job Work: The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant carried out activities amounting to 'manufacture' such as quality testing or labelling at their premises. Without identification and quantification of the goods allegedly manufactured, the show cause notice was deemed ex-facie bad in law. Consequently, the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant company and its partner were set aside. The Tribunal further held that since no suppression of facts with the intention to evade tax was established, invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty was legally unsustainable.
Job Work: The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant carried out activities amounting to 'manufacture' such as quality testing or labelling at their premises. Without identification and quantification of the goods allegedly manufactured, the show cause notice was deemed ex-facie bad in law. Consequently, the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant company and its partner were set aside. The Tribunal further held that since no suppression of facts with the intention to evade tax was established, invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty was legally unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
