Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin was held correctly classifiable under CTH 9018. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court-backed classification already accepted in the appellant's own earlier case and found that the attempt to distinguish that binding precedent was untenable because the same product and classification dispute had already been examined on the relevant facts. It also noted that Delhi and Kolkata Benches had taken the same view, making the controversy no longer res integra. The contrary classification in the impugned order was rejected, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits according to law.
Imported Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin was held correctly classifiable under CTH 9018. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court-backed classification already accepted in the appellant's own earlier case and found that the attempt to distinguish that binding precedent was untenable because the same product and classification dispute had already been examined on the relevant facts. It also noted that Delhi and Kolkata Benches had taken the same view, making the controversy no longer res integra. The contrary classification in the impugned order was rejected, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits according to law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.