International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6841 to 6860 of 96262 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.