Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation for demand of duty could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty by the appellants. The manufacture, clearances, and business transactions were duly recorded in books of account maintained by the appellants. The CENVAT credit demand and interest were set aside as the credit was reversed without utilization. No penalty was imposable as there was no intention to evade duty. The personal penalty on the partner was also set aside, following jurisdictional High Court precedents that separate personal penalties on partners in a firm case are unjustified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation for demand of duty could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty by the appellants. The manufacture, clearances, and business transactions were duly recorded in books of account maintained by the appellants. The CENVAT credit demand and interest were set aside as the credit was reversed without utilization. No penalty was imposable as there was no intention to evade duty. The personal penalty on the partner was also set aside, following jurisdictional High Court precedents that separate personal penalties on partners in a firm case are unjustified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
