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...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT set aside penalties for abetment of improper export and for use of false or incorrect material because the record did not show a specific, corroborated role by the appellant in overvaluation, misclassification, or the drawback claim. The evidence only linked him to helping obtain a fake driving licence and facilitate a bank account for the alleged mastermind, which was insufficient for penalty under Section 114(iii) and outside the scope of Section 114AA, as he was not shown to have filed, made, signed, or used any false customs document. The Tribunal also held that Section 117 could not be invoked without a show cause notice proposing that penalty.
CESTAT set aside penalties for abetment of improper export and for use of false or incorrect material because the record did not show a specific, corroborated role by the appellant in overvaluation, misclassification, or the drawback claim. The evidence only linked him to helping obtain a fake driving licence and facilitate a bank account for the alleged mastermind, which was insufficient for penalty under Section 114(iii) and outside the scope of Section 114AA, as he was not shown to have filed, made, signed, or used any false customs document. The Tribunal also held that Section 117 could not be invoked without a show cause notice proposing that penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.