ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The HC set aside the impugned common order dated 17 January 2022 and remanded the matter to the 2nd Respondent for fresh adjudication of the Petitioner's revision application on merits. The court directed reassessment of the Petitioner's entitlement to rebate under r.18 CER 2002 read with the relevant notification, including questions of parity with respect to BED/NCCD paid on exported finished goods, nexus of alleged interest defaults, legal effect of payment "under protest", consequences of s.142(4) CGST and related provisions of the Finance Acts, impact of SVLDRS settlement, and principles of unjust enrichment. Factual issues must be examined and reasons articulated by the 2nd Respondent.
The HC set aside the impugned common order dated 17 January 2022 and remanded the matter to the 2nd Respondent for fresh adjudication of the Petitioner's revision application on merits. The court directed reassessment of the Petitioner's entitlement to rebate under r.18 CER 2002 read with the relevant notification, including questions of parity with respect to BED/NCCD paid on exported finished goods, nexus of alleged interest defaults, legal effect of payment "under protest", consequences of s.142(4) CGST and related provisions of the Finance Acts, impact of SVLDRS settlement, and principles of unjust enrichment. Factual issues must be examined and reasons articulated by the 2nd Respondent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
