Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The additional discount of 8-10% given by the appellant to JEPL was held to be a genuine trade discount and not a "Commission" disguised as a discount to suppress the value. The CESTAT held that when the invoice is issued showing separate discounts, one payable to the distributor/dealer and the other to the purchaser, the former is considered a "Commission" and inadmissible. However, when the distributor/dealer purchases on their own account, such a discount is a normal trade discount and admissible. The 55% discount (including the additional 8-10%) passed on by the appellant to JEPL for their own purchases was held to be an admissible trade discount and could not be considered a "Commission".
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The additional discount of 8-10% given by the appellant to JEPL was held to be a genuine trade discount and not a "Commission" disguised as a discount to suppress the value. The CESTAT held that when the invoice is issued showing separate discounts, one payable to the distributor/dealer and the other to the purchaser, the former is considered a "Commission" and inadmissible. However, when the distributor/dealer purchases on their own account, such a discount is a normal trade discount and admissible. The 55% discount (including the additional 8-10%) passed on by the appellant to JEPL for their own purchases was held to be an admissible trade discount and could not be considered a "Commission".
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
