Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that although the appellant and the buyer are inter-connected undertakings, the requisite legal relationship under Section 4(3)(b) and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules (viz., distributorship/relatives or specified categories) was not established; consequently the deeming provisions treating them as related persons for valuation are inapplicable. The Tribunal further found no basis to classify the arrangement as a job-work transaction triggering Rule 10A valuation. The adjudicatory treatment of the supplies as related-party job work for enhanced valuation was therefore unsustainable. The impugned order confirming duty demands was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that although the appellant and the buyer are inter-connected undertakings, the requisite legal relationship under Section 4(3)(b) and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules (viz., distributorship/relatives or specified categories) was not established; consequently the deeming provisions treating them as related persons for valuation are inapplicable. The Tribunal further found no basis to classify the arrangement as a job-work transaction triggering Rule 10A valuation. The adjudicatory treatment of the supplies as related-party job work for enhanced valuation was therefore unsustainable. The impugned order confirming duty demands was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
