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...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 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 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeals by remanding the matter back to the original authority. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer's insistence on the importer conforming to the classification proposed by the investigating agency was inappropriate and contrary to the self-assessment procedure u/ss 17, 36, and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal observed that enforced conformity was evident from the immediate challenge to the assessment by the importer. The Tribunal found the lack of a 'speaking order' as required u/s 17(5) of the Act vitiated the impugned orders with illegality. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the bills of entry to the original authority for compliance with the statutory procedure, particularly Section 17(5).
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeals by remanding the matter back to the original authority. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer's insistence on the importer conforming to the classification proposed by the investigating agency was inappropriate and contrary to the self-assessment procedure u/ss 17, 36, and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal observed that enforced conformity was evident from the immediate challenge to the assessment by the importer. The Tribunal found the lack of a 'speaking order' as required u/s 17(5) of the Act vitiated the impugned orders with illegality. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the bills of entry to the original authority for compliance with the statutory procedure, particularly Section 17(5).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
