Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal involving clandestine removal allegations of craft paper and packing material. The tribunal set aside demands totaling Rs. 23,03,781 for alleged clandestine clearance of kraft paper and Rs. 74,827 for packing material, finding insufficient independent corroboration despite documents recovered during searches. The department's case relied solely on self-incriminating statements without verifying evidence through simultaneous searches of suppliers and customers. Regarding CENVAT credit denial for GTA services worth Rs. 3,19,176, the matter was remanded for redetermination under normal limitation period following CBIC Circular 1065/4/2018. The undervaluation demand of Rs. 10,71,211 under Rule 7 was remanded for assessment within normal limitation since clearances were reflected in ER-1 returns. Extended limitation period invocation was deemed inappropriate for disclosed transactions.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal involving clandestine removal allegations of craft paper and packing material. The tribunal set aside demands totaling Rs. 23,03,781 for alleged clandestine clearance of kraft paper and Rs. 74,827 for packing material, finding insufficient independent corroboration despite documents recovered during searches. The department's case relied solely on self-incriminating statements without verifying evidence through simultaneous searches of suppliers and customers. Regarding CENVAT credit denial for GTA services worth Rs. 3,19,176, the matter was remanded for redetermination under normal limitation period following CBIC Circular 1065/4/2018. The undervaluation demand of Rs. 10,71,211 under Rule 7 was remanded for assessment within normal limitation since clearances were reflected in ER-1 returns. Extended limitation period invocation was deemed inappropriate for disclosed transactions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
