Customs valuation and import permissibility conflict resolved: accepted enhancement of transaction value removes liability for confiscation and penalt...
Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6601 to 6620 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Demand on renting of immovable property was held partly time-barred as extended limitation was invoked without proving suppression with intent to evade; the portion beyond normal period was set aside, while the normal-period tax was confirmed and no penalty was imposed since tax and interest were already paid. Demand on management/business consultancy under RCM was rejected for want of evidence linking foreign currency expenses to taxable services and as revenue-neutral; the entire demand (raised only under extended period) was set aside. Commission paid for selling tea abroad was held exempt under the relevant notification without territorial restriction; demand was set aside. Royalty/licence fee and other remittance-related demands were set aside for limitation and lack of findings/evidence. All penalties were quashed under Section 73(3). - CESTAT
Demand on renting of immovable property was held partly time-barred as extended limitation was invoked without proving suppression with intent to evade; the portion beyond normal period was set aside, while the normal-period tax was confirmed and no penalty was imposed since tax and interest were already paid. Demand on management/business consultancy under RCM was rejected for want of evidence linking foreign currency expenses to taxable services and as revenue-neutral; the entire demand (raised only under extended period) was set aside. Commission paid for selling tea abroad was held exempt under the relevant notification without territorial restriction; demand was set aside. Royalty/licence fee and other remittance-related demands were set aside for limitation and lack of findings/evidence. All penalties were quashed under Section 73(3). - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.