Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT ruled on short payment of excise duty involving related parties under Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act. Company directors (siblings) held 99% shares and made clearances to distributor firm owned by their parents, establishing related party relationship. Differential pricing pattern revealed mutual interest, with distributor receiving goods at lower prices. Tribunal held transaction value must be based on distributor's selling price per Rule 9 of CEVR 2000. Interest payment required on differential duty, though penalty was not imposed as department filed no cross-objection. Established principle prevents appellant from being placed in worse position upon appeal. Appeal rejected, affirming duty valuation and interest payment requirements.
CESTAT ruled on short payment of excise duty involving related parties under Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act. Company directors (siblings) held 99% shares and made clearances to distributor firm owned by their parents, establishing related party relationship. Differential pricing pattern revealed mutual interest, with distributor receiving goods at lower prices. Tribunal held transaction value must be based on distributor's selling price per Rule 9 of CEVR 2000. Interest payment required on differential duty, though penalty was not imposed as department filed no cross-objection. Established principle prevents appellant from being placed in worse position upon appeal. Appeal rejected, affirming duty valuation and interest payment requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
