Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Appellants challenged enhancement of values of imported 'Induction Cookers' by respondent without following best assessment method or providing admissible evidence. CESTAT held there was no justification to compare goods imported by different importers as specifications and features vary. No admissible evidence was provided to reject transaction value declared by appellants. Respondent discarded declared value without basis. Paying duty under compulsion cannot be considered acceptance of loaded value. In absence of justifiable reason, enhancement of declared value is untenable. Appeal allowed.
Appellants challenged enhancement of values of imported 'Induction Cookers' by respondent without following best assessment method or providing admissible evidence. CESTAT held there was no justification to compare goods imported by different importers as specifications and features vary. No admissible evidence was provided to reject transaction value declared by appellants. Respondent discarded declared value without basis. Paying duty under compulsion cannot be considered acceptance of loaded value. In absence of justifiable reason, enhancement of declared value is untenable. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
