Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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.