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...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant acted in good faith by disclosing all relevant facts in coal extraction returns. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act was improperly invoked, as the appellant did not intentionally suppress information or evade duty. The demand for the period March 2011 to February 2015 was set aside, with the tribunal emphasizing that a bona fide interpretation of legal provisions does not constitute deliberate suppression of facts, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on self-assessment principles.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant acted in good faith by disclosing all relevant facts in coal extraction returns. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act was improperly invoked, as the appellant did not intentionally suppress information or evade duty. The demand for the period March 2011 to February 2015 was set aside, with the tribunal emphasizing that a bona fide interpretation of legal provisions does not constitute deliberate suppression of facts, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on self-assessment principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.