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...
CESTAT allowed appellants' appeals, setting aside customs duty demand and penalty. The tribunal found no sustainable evidence of undervaluation, non-compliance with notification requirements, or procedural irregularities. Electronic evidence and investigation statements were deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Sections 138B and 138C of Customs Act. The tribunal ordered refund of Rs. 1,21,73,905/- paid during investigation within 60 days, effectively exonerating the appellants of all charges related to customs duty evasion and undervaluation.
CESTAT allowed appellants' appeals, setting aside customs duty demand and penalty. The tribunal found no sustainable evidence of undervaluation, non-compliance with notification requirements, or procedural irregularities. Electronic evidence and investigation statements were deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Sections 138B and 138C of Customs Act. The tribunal ordered refund of Rs. 1,21,73,905/- paid during investigation within 60 days, effectively exonerating the appellants of all charges related to customs duty evasion and undervaluation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
