Jurisdictional sanction requirements bar reassessment when approval comes from an authority lacking statutory competence under the applicable framewor...
Recorded sales receipts cannot be reassessed as unexplained cash credits, eliminating the basis for consequential alleged commission expenditure addit...
Sufficient cause for delayed income-tax appeals requires bona fide diligence; unsubstantiated counsel illness and assessee inaction defeat condonation...
TNMM Segmentation Limits Transfer-Pricing Adjustments to Associated-Enterprise Transactions and Requires Turnover-Based Comparable Selection for IT Se...
Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to a body corporate because the term "person" is not confined to natural persons; the Tribunal relied on the General Clauses Act and broader statutory context to reject the argument that a company cannot be penalised. Penalty was also sustainable because the goods were liable to confiscation, and actual confiscation was not required where the appellant knew or had reason to believe that undervaluation and duty short-payment had occurred. On the facts already concluded in the common adjudication order, the Tribunal upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal.
Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to a body corporate because the term "person" is not confined to natural persons; the Tribunal relied on the General Clauses Act and broader statutory context to reject the argument that a company cannot be penalised. Penalty was also sustainable because the goods were liable to confiscation, and actual confiscation was not required where the appellant knew or had reason to believe that undervaluation and duty short-payment had occurred. On the facts already concluded in the common adjudication order, the Tribunal upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
