Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In an anti-profiteering inquiry under section 171, tax reduction and input tax credit issues must still be tested against evidence that prices may also be affected by market forces and higher input costs. The Tribunal accepted that any presumption of profiteering is rebuttable and must yield to clear evidence. Because the DGAP acknowledged the respondent's documents but did not meaningfully reconsider them, the report was found unsustainable. The matter was remanded for a fresh investigation from the beginning under Rule 133(4), with liberty to both sides to place further material.
In an anti-profiteering inquiry under section 171, tax reduction and input tax credit issues must still be tested against evidence that prices may also be affected by market forces and higher input costs. The Tribunal accepted that any presumption of profiteering is rebuttable and must yield to clear evidence. Because the DGAP acknowledged the respondent's documents but did not meaningfully reconsider them, the report was found unsustainable. The matter was remanded for a fresh investigation from the beginning under Rule 133(4), with liberty to both sides to place further material.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.