Jurisdictional sanction requirements bar reassessment when approval comes from an authority lacking statutory competence under the applicable framewor...
Recorded sales receipts cannot be reassessed as unexplained cash credits, eliminating the basis for consequential alleged commission expenditure addit...
Sufficient cause for delayed income-tax appeals requires bona fide diligence; unsubstantiated counsel illness and assessee inaction defeat condonation...
TNMM Segmentation Limits Transfer-Pricing Adjustments to Associated-Enterprise Transactions and Requires Turnover-Based Comparable Selection for IT Se...
Internal TNMM supports deletion of freight-forwarding adjustments where comparable non-AE transactions are separately identifiable and materially simi...
Imported chilli seeds treated with poisonous chemicals and meant solely for sowing were held not to be "spices" under Chapter 09 because they were neither edible nor fit for human consumption; consequently, classification under CTI 0904 was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90, with Rule 3(a) of the GIR not permitting comparison at the eight-digit level. Invocation of the extended limitation period was disallowed as there was no finding of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and the bills of entry had been physically assessed, showing departmental awareness; the appellate reliance on a request under section 28(6) was also found unjustified in view of the subsequent withdrawal and contest of classification. Appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Imported chilli seeds treated with poisonous chemicals and meant solely for sowing were held not to be "spices" under Chapter 09 because they were neither edible nor fit for human consumption; consequently, classification under CTI 0904 was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90, with Rule 3(a) of the GIR not permitting comparison at the eight-digit level. Invocation of the extended limitation period was disallowed as there was no finding of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and the bills of entry had been physically assessed, showing departmental awareness; the appellate reliance on a request under section 28(6) was also found unjustified in view of the subsequent withdrawal and contest of classification. Appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
