Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Levy of penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 - Customs House Agent (CHA) - violation of Regulation 13 of CHALR 2004 - It is alleged that the appellant did not verify the antecedents of the importer - The department has not been able to establish sufficient grounds for imposing penalty under section 112 (a) of Customs Act 1962. The penalty imposed is not warranted and not justified. - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 - Customs House Agent (CHA) - violation of Regulation 13 of CHALR 2004 - It is alleged that the appellant did not verify the antecedents of the importer - The department has not been able to establish sufficient grounds for imposing penalty under section 112 (a) of Customs Act 1962. The penalty imposed is not warranted and not justified. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
