Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 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 that merely listing an inter-connected undertaking in Income Tax Form 3CD does not establish a "related person" relationship under Central Excise law. Without specific determination that the appellant and M/s Shree Vaishnav Ispat Private Limited were related under Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they cannot be treated as related parties for valuation purposes. The Tribunal cited precedents establishing that inter-connected undertakings are not automatically related persons, and valuation should be determined under Rule 10 rather than Rules 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT ruled that merely listing an inter-connected undertaking in Income Tax Form 3CD does not establish a "related person" relationship under Central Excise law. Without specific determination that the appellant and M/s Shree Vaishnav Ispat Private Limited were related under Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they cannot be treated as related parties for valuation purposes. The Tribunal cited precedents establishing that inter-connected undertakings are not automatically related persons, and valuation should be determined under Rule 10 rather than Rules 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
