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...
Section 79 did not bar the set off of brought forward business losses where the persons beneficially holding more than 51% of the voting power continued to hold that voting power on the relevant date; on the uncontroverted facts, the disqualifying change in shareholding was absent and the Revenue's challenge failed. An appellate authority could also entertain a lawful additional depreciation claim raised through a revised computation, because the restriction in Goetze (India) Ltd. applies only to the Assessing Officer and does not limit appellate powers. The Tribunal upheld allowance of both claims and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Section 79 did not bar the set off of brought forward business losses where the persons beneficially holding more than 51% of the voting power continued to hold that voting power on the relevant date; on the uncontroverted facts, the disqualifying change in shareholding was absent and the Revenue's challenge failed. An appellate authority could also entertain a lawful additional depreciation claim raised through a revised computation, because the restriction in Goetze (India) Ltd. applies only to the Assessing Officer and does not limit appellate powers. The Tribunal upheld allowance of both claims and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
