Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
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...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty for abetment under customs law could not be sustained where the show cause notice alleged only breach of authorised courier obligations under Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, and did not specifically allege abetment. The Tribunal noted that Section 112(a) penalty was imposed on an abetment basis without the necessary allegation, making the penalty untenable. It also observed that proceedings under the courier regulations had already been dropped in the appellant's favour, so the alleged regulatory contravention could not support the penalty.
Penalty for abetment under customs law could not be sustained where the show cause notice alleged only breach of authorised courier obligations under Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, and did not specifically allege abetment. The Tribunal noted that Section 112(a) penalty was imposed on an abetment basis without the necessary allegation, making the penalty untenable. It also observed that proceedings under the courier regulations had already been dropped in the appellant's favour, so the alleged regulatory contravention could not support the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.