Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Section 7 admission requires established financial debt and default, not precise interest quantification, while post-suspension defaults remain action...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A steamer agent's penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside because it filed the IGM on the Master's declarations, promptly sought amendment on confirmation of the retained onboard cargo, and there was no evidence of conscious involvement, connivance, aiding, abetting, or deliberate suppression. The Tribunal held that a mere procedural lapse, inadvertent omission, or communication failure is insufficient for penal liability. It also ruled that retained onboard cargo which remained continuously on the vessel, was never unloaded in India, and was discharged abroad did not acquire the character of imported goods and therefore was not liable to confiscation under Section 111.
A steamer agent's penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside because it filed the IGM on the Master's declarations, promptly sought amendment on confirmation of the retained onboard cargo, and there was no evidence of conscious involvement, connivance, aiding, abetting, or deliberate suppression. The Tribunal held that a mere procedural lapse, inadvertent omission, or communication failure is insufficient for penal liability. It also ruled that retained onboard cargo which remained continuously on the vessel, was never unloaded in India, and was discharged abroad did not acquire the character of imported goods and therefore was not liable to confiscation under Section 111.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
