Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
AT, in a profiteering matter concerning the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, held that interest at 18% under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules was not leviable since the investigation period did not substantially fall within the operative period of that provision. AT further held that no penalty was imposable as the statutory provisions enabling penalty came into force only in 2020, subsequent to the last date of the alleged profiteering. The concerned Commissioner was directed to submit a compliance report within four months, and the appeal was disposed of.
AT, in a profiteering matter concerning the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, held that interest at 18% under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules was not leviable since the investigation period did not substantially fall within the operative period of that provision. AT further held that no penalty was imposable as the statutory provisions enabling penalty came into force only in 2020, subsequent to the last date of the alleged profiteering. The concerned Commissioner was directed to submit a compliance report within four months, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
