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...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - Charge of abatement - Connivance between the employee of the CHA and importer - Illegal Import - prohibited goods - the appellant under the influence of the importer, filed the bills of entry without completing the KYC formalities. Further, from the appreciation of the facts and on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no case of connivance is made out against the appellant /employee i.e. no allegation or finding of any additional gain or reward received by him. - appellant has unknowingly abetted or been instrumental in the nefarious activity of the import of the prohibited goods, by the actual importer. - Penalty levied, but reduced.
Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - Charge of abatement - Connivance between the employee of the CHA and importer - Illegal Import - prohibited goods - the appellant under the influence of the importer, filed the bills of entry without completing the KYC formalities. Further, from the appreciation of the facts and on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no case of connivance is made out against the appellant /employee i.e. no allegation or finding of any additional gain or reward received by him. - appellant has unknowingly abetted or been instrumental in the nefarious activity of the import of the prohibited goods, by the actual importer. - Penalty levied, but reduced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.