Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
