Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Enhancement of penalty, levied on Employee of CHA - appellant was reckless and negligent in using the Customs House Agent Licence of his Employer. - Smuggling - red Sander Woods - it is incorrect to say that the Appellant is liable only under the Regulations for any violation and contravention and if the action under the Regulations is not sufficient for the grave offence, there is no legal impediment to proceed against the employee / appellant of the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations. - There is no mala fide or infirmity in the order of imposition penalty at ₹ 5,00,000/ - HC
Enhancement of penalty, levied on Employee of CHA - appellant was reckless and negligent in using the Customs House Agent Licence of his Employer. - Smuggling - red Sander Woods - it is incorrect to say that the Appellant is liable only under the Regulations for any violation and contravention and if the action under the Regulations is not sufficient for the grave offence, there is no legal impediment to proceed against the employee / appellant of the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations. - There is no mala fide or infirmity in the order of imposition penalty at ₹ 5,00,000/ - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.