Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
Extended reassessment limitation in search cases requires asset-linked escaped income, invalidating additions based only on unexplained money or expen...
Enhanced tolerance band under section 43CA applies retrospectively, deleting qualifying deemed-sale additions while disputed stamp valuation requires ...
The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as "fish protein" (2012-2016) then "decalcified fish scale" (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under notification provisions applicable to advance authorization schemes. Without licensing authority objection or authorization cancellation, the Department cannot deny notification benefits. Appeal allowed.
The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as "fish protein" (2012-2016) then "decalcified fish scale" (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under notification provisions applicable to advance authorization schemes. Without licensing authority objection or authorization cancellation, the Department cannot deny notification benefits. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4921 
