Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A customs broker's failure to verify the authenticity of duty credit scrips was treated as conscious facilitation where forged, duplicated and re-registered DGFT scrips were used for duty debit. The Tribunal held that the broker was bound to insist on physical copies or verify the scrip particulars from the DGFT database, since the clearance condition required production of the scrip before the proper officer for debit. On the facts, the repeated use of forged scrips and complete lack of verification justified liability under section 114AA, and the penalty was upheld. The Tribunal distinguished an earlier CESTAT ruling because intent and knowledge had been specifically addressed here.
A customs broker's failure to verify the authenticity of duty credit scrips was treated as conscious facilitation where forged, duplicated and re-registered DGFT scrips were used for duty debit. The Tribunal held that the broker was bound to insist on physical copies or verify the scrip particulars from the DGFT database, since the clearance condition required production of the scrip before the proper officer for debit. On the facts, the repeated use of forged scrips and complete lack of verification justified liability under section 114AA, and the penalty was upheld. The Tribunal distinguished an earlier CESTAT ruling because intent and knowledge had been specifically addressed here.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
