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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT determined classification disputes regarding collar bands, chest bands, printed fabric folders and swatch cards. The tribunal held collar/chest bands were correctly classified under CETSH 48185000 as apparel accessories attracting 16% duty. Printed fabric folders/swatch cards were found classifiable under CETSH 49011020, rejecting classification under CETSH 48203000 for stationery items. On limitation, the tribunal ruled no willful suppression existed when appellant adopted similar classification in absence of specific provisions. Following Supreme Court precedent requiring willful intent for extended limitation, CESTAT set aside the demand as time-barred since evidence failed to establish deliberate evasion. Appeal allowed with entire demand held barred by limitation.
CESTAT determined classification disputes regarding collar bands, chest bands, printed fabric folders and swatch cards. The tribunal held collar/chest bands were correctly classified under CETSH 48185000 as apparel accessories attracting 16% duty. Printed fabric folders/swatch cards were found classifiable under CETSH 49011020, rejecting classification under CETSH 48203000 for stationery items. On limitation, the tribunal ruled no willful suppression existed when appellant adopted similar classification in absence of specific provisions. Following Supreme Court precedent requiring willful intent for extended limitation, CESTAT set aside the demand as time-barred since evidence failed to establish deliberate evasion. Appeal allowed with entire demand held barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
