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...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
