Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5321 to 5340 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
