Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for excise duty where sales were on a Freight on Road (FOR) basis, relying on precedent that the place of removal determines valuation. The Tribunal affirmed that only charges up to the point of transfer of ownership are includible, excluding post-transfer expenses borne by the buyer. The extended period of limitation was validly invoked as the appellant deliberately suppressed the freight component to evade duty, a fact uncovered during audit. The Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the appeal, confirming the duty demand and the applicability of extended limitation due to suppression of material facts.
The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for excise duty where sales were on a Freight on Road (FOR) basis, relying on precedent that the place of removal determines valuation. The Tribunal affirmed that only charges up to the point of transfer of ownership are includible, excluding post-transfer expenses borne by the buyer. The extended period of limitation was validly invoked as the appellant deliberately suppressed the freight component to evade duty, a fact uncovered during audit. The Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the appeal, confirming the duty demand and the applicability of extended limitation due to suppression of material facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
