Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
Page of 4884
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97661 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty u/s 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - evasion of duty - The imposition of penalty on both the appellants is un-called for - since Appellant No.1, had transferred the semi-finished goods for machining to the Appellant No.2, without permission from the Department, it is a procedural and technical lapse on the part of the appellants and the same requires imposition of token penalty in terms of Rule 27, which provides a maximum penalty of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, penalty on both the appellants is reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - evasion of duty - The imposition of penalty on both the appellants is un-called for - since Appellant No.1, had transferred the semi-finished goods for machining to the Appellant No.2, without permission from the Department, it is a procedural and technical lapse on the part of the appellants and the same requires imposition of token penalty in terms of Rule 27, which provides a maximum penalty of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, penalty on both the appellants is reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
