Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Penalty under rule 26 of the CER, 2002 can be imposed on a person only when it is proved beyond doubt that the person dealing with excisable goods knew or had reason to believe that such excisable goods were liable to confiscation. There is no evidence on record to prove that Appellant has acted in a way to attract the penalty provisions of rule 26 of the CER, 2002. - AT
Penalty under rule 26 of the CER, 2002 can be imposed on a person only when it is proved beyond doubt that the person dealing with excisable goods knew or had reason to believe that such excisable goods were liable to confiscation. There is no evidence on record to prove that Appellant has acted in a way to attract the penalty provisions of rule 26 of the CER, 2002. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
