Trademark depreciation and section 14A adjustments: ITAT applies consistency, independent book-profit computation, and no disallowance without exempt ...
Rebuttable search presumptions and corroboration standards shaped deletion of unsubstantiated additions, while rental income and limited profit estima...
Burden of proof rested on the Revenue to prove imported items were Open Cells rather than LED/LCD panels; the Revenue failed to discharge this burden given conflicting expert opinions and lack of adversarial testing of experts, so the tribunal held the imports qualified as LED/LCD panels and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (S.No. 432). The tribunal further held extended limitation under section 28(4) inapplicable due to absence of collusion or suppression, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under section 114A, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Burden of proof rested on the Revenue to prove imported items were Open Cells rather than LED/LCD panels; the Revenue failed to discharge this burden given conflicting expert opinions and lack of adversarial testing of experts, so the tribunal held the imports qualified as LED/LCD panels and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (S.No. 432). The tribunal further held extended limitation under section 28(4) inapplicable due to absence of collusion or suppression, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under section 114A, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
