Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 95999 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT set aside the CPC, Bengaluru intimation under s.143(1) of the Act, holding that the centralized adjustment restricting the assessee's claim of exemption under s.10(10AA) was invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory first proviso to s.143(1)(a). The Tribunal held that prior written or electronic intimation specifying the proposed adjustment and affording the assessee a 30-day opportunity to respond is a statutory precondition and an essential element of audi alteram partem. Absent such prior intimation, the adjustment was held to be ultravires and violative of natural justice. The impugned intimation was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT set aside the CPC, Bengaluru intimation under s.143(1) of the Act, holding that the centralized adjustment restricting the assessee's claim of exemption under s.10(10AA) was invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory first proviso to s.143(1)(a). The Tribunal held that prior written or electronic intimation specifying the proposed adjustment and affording the assessee a 30-day opportunity to respond is a statutory precondition and an essential element of audi alteram partem. Absent such prior intimation, the adjustment was held to be ultravires and violative of natural justice. The impugned intimation was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
