Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Where exported goods are zero rated and no tax is payable, a procedural contravention of Rule 138 (expiry of an E-way bill) without evidence of intent to evade tax does not support computation or imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a). Applying Coordinate Bench reasoning, the expiry caused by a vehicular breakdown shortly before interception was a transport mishap and not a tax-evasion device; therefore harsh penal consequences under Section 129(3) were unsustainable. The impugned APL 04 orders were quashed and the penal amount was directed to be refunded with interest within twelve weeks.
Where exported goods are zero rated and no tax is payable, a procedural contravention of Rule 138 (expiry of an E-way bill) without evidence of intent to evade tax does not support computation or imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a). Applying Coordinate Bench reasoning, the expiry caused by a vehicular breakdown shortly before interception was a transport mishap and not a tax-evasion device; therefore harsh penal consequences under Section 129(3) were unsustainable. The impugned APL 04 orders were quashed and the penal amount was directed to be refunded with interest within twelve weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.