Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
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...
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
