Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker's alleged breach of Regulation 10(d) was not proved because the department produced no credible material showing absence of advice to the exporter, while the exporter's letter confirming such advice could not be rejected for lack of written particulars. The alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) also failed, as neither the show cause notice nor the order identified any specific incorrect information said to have been imparted. On Regulation 10(n), the Tribunal held that verification is satisfied by checking issued IEC, GSTIN, identity and address documents through reliable records; it does not require a physical visit or supervision of government authorities. Revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker's alleged breach of Regulation 10(d) was not proved because the department produced no credible material showing absence of advice to the exporter, while the exporter's letter confirming such advice could not be rejected for lack of written particulars. The alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) also failed, as neither the show cause notice nor the order identified any specific incorrect information said to have been imparted. On Regulation 10(n), the Tribunal held that verification is satisfied by checking issued IEC, GSTIN, identity and address documents through reliable records; it does not require a physical visit or supervision of government authorities. Revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
