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 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Breach of the secure transit obligation under cargo handling regulations, by itself, did not establish abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods. The essential basis for penalty under Section 114 was knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, or admissible evidence of active participation or positive collusion, and that evidentiary burden was not met. A mere omission in secure transport, without proof of such knowledge or abetment, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Breach of the secure transit obligation under cargo handling regulations, by itself, did not establish abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods. The essential basis for penalty under Section 114 was knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, or admissible evidence of active participation or positive collusion, and that evidentiary burden was not met. A mere omission in secure transport, without proof of such knowledge or abetment, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.