Appeal allows marketing payments as deductible business expenses under Sec.37; director pay retained; R&D deductible from certificate date under Sec.3...
Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned duty demand and holding the appellant entitled to the exemption claimed under the notification for supplies made in connection with petroleum operations awarded through ICB. The Tribunal found the supplies were made pursuant to a purchase order by the project operator and supported by documentary evidence and official confirmation that relevant blocks were allotted via ICB, rendering the appellant, as subcontractor, eligible for exemption. The adjudicating authority's contrary conclusion was reversed on merits; because the order was unsustainable on merits, the Tribunal did not proceed to determine the limitation issue. Appeal allowed; impugned order annulled and exemption granted.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned duty demand and holding the appellant entitled to the exemption claimed under the notification for supplies made in connection with petroleum operations awarded through ICB. The Tribunal found the supplies were made pursuant to a purchase order by the project operator and supported by documentary evidence and official confirmation that relevant blocks were allotted via ICB, rendering the appellant, as subcontractor, eligible for exemption. The adjudicating authority's contrary conclusion was reversed on merits; because the order was unsustainable on merits, the Tribunal did not proceed to determine the limitation issue. Appeal allowed; impugned order annulled and exemption granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
