Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Dispute concerns entitlement to customs duty exemption under Notification No.84/97-Cus where the department alleged wrongful availing based on forged Project Implementation Authorisation Certificate (PIAC), while the claimant contends absence of an assigned Line Ministry prevented lawful countersignature. The tribunal considered applicability of natural justice and the doctrine of prejudice, finding the appellant did not establish prejudice from prior opportunities but noting seriousness of fraud allegations. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication: the original authority must allow filing of written submissions and afford a personal hearing before deciding entitlement to the exemption.
Dispute concerns entitlement to customs duty exemption under Notification No.84/97-Cus where the department alleged wrongful availing based on forged Project Implementation Authorisation Certificate (PIAC), while the claimant contends absence of an assigned Line Ministry prevented lawful countersignature. The tribunal considered applicability of natural justice and the doctrine of prejudice, finding the appellant did not establish prejudice from prior opportunities but noting seriousness of fraud allegations. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication: the original authority must allow filing of written submissions and afford a personal hearing before deciding entitlement to the exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
