Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
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...
Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free imported marble where a substantial quantity was found in the factory and the balance allegation rested on internet material and section 108 statements that were not proved admissible under section 138B. The Tribunal held that such material was insufficient to establish diversion or duty liability, and set aside the duty demand with interest. Penalty under section 114A also failed because the alleged default was only a post-import non-fulfilment of exemption conditions, not non-levy caused by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Penalties under section 114AA were likewise unsustainable because no false declaration in the import documents was shown.
Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free imported marble where a substantial quantity was found in the factory and the balance allegation rested on internet material and section 108 statements that were not proved admissible under section 138B. The Tribunal held that such material was insufficient to establish diversion or duty liability, and set aside the duty demand with interest. Penalty under section 114A also failed because the alleged default was only a post-import non-fulfilment of exemption conditions, not non-levy caused by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Penalties under section 114AA were likewise unsustainable because no false declaration in the import documents was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
