<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (4) TMI 403 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96362</link>
    <description>The case involved allegations of creating fictitious entities for tax benefits by partners of a manufacturing company. The partners contested the disallowance of tax exemption benefits, providing evidence of legitimate business activities. The Commissioner&#039;s order was challenged for not adequately considering the evidence. The Tribunal found the Commissioner&#039;s failure to impartially assess the evidence, ordering a remand for a reasoned decision and allowing both parties to present further evidence. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the initial order for reconsideration by the Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:07:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 403 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96362</link>
      <description>The case involved allegations of creating fictitious entities for tax benefits by partners of a manufacturing company. The partners contested the disallowance of tax exemption benefits, providing evidence of legitimate business activities. The Commissioner&#039;s order was challenged for not adequately considering the evidence. The Tribunal found the Commissioner&#039;s failure to impartially assess the evidence, ordering a remand for a reasoned decision and allowing both parties to present further evidence. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the initial order for reconsideration by the Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>