Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Advance ruling jurisdiction is barred where the question raised has already been conclusively decided by a Court, because the authority cannot re-adjudicate a settled issue or create conflicting classifications. Applying that principle, the Authority held that the classification of roasted areca nuts was already determined by the Madras High Court under Heading 2008, and the applicant showed no change in the goods' nature, composition or processing. Mere renumbering or substitution of the tariff sub-heading after later legislation did not create a fresh classification question. The application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected as covered by binding judicial precedent.
Advance ruling jurisdiction is barred where the question raised has already been conclusively decided by a Court, because the authority cannot re-adjudicate a settled issue or create conflicting classifications. Applying that principle, the Authority held that the classification of roasted areca nuts was already determined by the Madras High Court under Heading 2008, and the applicant showed no change in the goods' nature, composition or processing. Mere renumbering or substitution of the tariff sub-heading after later legislation did not create a fresh classification question. The application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected as covered by binding judicial precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
