Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 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" ?
Illegal removal of a seized container and substitution through forged gate passes was treated as a serious breach of HCCAR supervision and customs compliance, but revocation of custodianship was held to be a disproportionate response. The Tribunal noted recovery of the goods, police findings showing no material against management, cooperation with investigation, and corrective measures taken thereafter. It upheld penalty for the violations but declined the severest consequence of revocation. On vicarious liability, it held that employee misconduct alone, without evidence of knowledge, connivance or conscious facilitation by management, could not justify revocation, and the Department failed to show grounds for appellate interference.
Illegal removal of a seized container and substitution through forged gate passes was treated as a serious breach of HCCAR supervision and customs compliance, but revocation of custodianship was held to be a disproportionate response. The Tribunal noted recovery of the goods, police findings showing no material against management, cooperation with investigation, and corrective measures taken thereafter. It upheld penalty for the violations but declined the severest consequence of revocation. On vicarious liability, it held that employee misconduct alone, without evidence of knowledge, connivance or conscious facilitation by management, could not justify revocation, and the Department failed to show grounds for appellate interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
