Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer was treated as classifiable under CTH 70051090, with the corresponding exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS, because prior Tribunal orders had already settled the issue, including in the same importer's case. The Tribunal held that, in light of this binding precedent, the departmental challenge to the remand was contrary to judicial discipline. It also noted that the original authority, as a subordinate forum, had to re-decide the matter in de novo proceedings consistently with the settled classification and the factual findings to be recorded. The appeal was dismissed and the remand order was maintained.
Clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer was treated as classifiable under CTH 70051090, with the corresponding exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS, because prior Tribunal orders had already settled the issue, including in the same importer's case. The Tribunal held that, in light of this binding precedent, the departmental challenge to the remand was contrary to judicial discipline. It also noted that the original authority, as a subordinate forum, had to re-decide the matter in de novo proceedings consistently with the settled classification and the factual findings to be recorded. The appeal was dismissed and the remand order was maintained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
