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...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Confiscation of goods and levy of penalty - Import of Pair of Shoes - mis-declaration/suppression in the import documents - Non-compliance of the provisions of the IPR Rules, 2007 - The CESTAT found the goods to be counterfeit, bearing the logo "UCB" without the right holder's consent, categorizing them as "prohibited goods" under the Customs Act. The appellant's challenge based on the procedure under Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, was dismissed, upholding the confiscation under Section 111(d) and the penalty under Section 112(a)(i).
Confiscation of goods and levy of penalty - Import of Pair of Shoes - mis-declaration/suppression in the import documents - Non-compliance of the provisions of the IPR Rules, 2007 - The CESTAT found the goods to be counterfeit, bearing the logo "UCB" without the right holder's consent, categorizing them as "prohibited goods" under the Customs Act. The appellant's challenge based on the procedure under Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, was dismissed, upholding the confiscation under Section 111(d) and the penalty under Section 112(a)(i).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.