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 upheld the Original Authority's determination that the appellant qualifies as a "new industrial unit" under Para 5(a) of Notification No.20/2007-C.E., concluding the unit commenced commercial production w.e.f. 31.03.2017. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's continuity theory equating the appellant with the pre-existing unit, finding distinct operational setups and no evidentiary basis to treat them as identical; the appellant's establishment at a location approved by the competent State Committee further corroborated its status. Because the appellant falls within the first category of the Notification, the 25% expansion precondition is inapplicable. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the ten-year exemption under Notification No.20/2007-C.E.; appeal disposed.
CESTAT upheld the Original Authority's determination that the appellant qualifies as a "new industrial unit" under Para 5(a) of Notification No.20/2007-C.E., concluding the unit commenced commercial production w.e.f. 31.03.2017. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's continuity theory equating the appellant with the pre-existing unit, finding distinct operational setups and no evidentiary basis to treat them as identical; the appellant's establishment at a location approved by the competent State Committee further corroborated its status. Because the appellant falls within the first category of the Notification, the 25% expansion precondition is inapplicable. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the ten-year exemption under Notification No.20/2007-C.E.; appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
