Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.
Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
