Anti-profiteering obligations survive business demerger, complaint withdrawal, and customized supply arrangements where rate-reduction benefits are no...
Road restoration charges constitute taxable services when requested for commercial pipeline activity, requiring reverse-charge GST from the business r...
Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties and orders
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
