Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 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 112(a) and Section 114AA of CA on Chartered Engineer - Issuance of Certificate under EPCG scheme without verification - The case involved the issuance of a Chartered Engineer Certificate for the installation and use of imported machinery under the EPCG scheme without verifying whether the machines were actually installed. The Department imposed penalties for non-compliance with verification requirements. The appellant argued good faith reliance on submitted documents and emphasized their limited role in verifying installation. However, the Tribunal held them liable for penalties, considering the seriousness of the offense.
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) and Section 114AA of CA on Chartered Engineer - Issuance of Certificate under EPCG scheme without verification - The case involved the issuance of a Chartered Engineer Certificate for the installation and use of imported machinery under the EPCG scheme without verifying whether the machines were actually installed. The Department imposed penalties for non-compliance with verification requirements. The appellant argued good faith reliance on submitted documents and emphasized their limited role in verifying installation. However, the Tribunal held them liable for penalties, considering the seriousness of the offense.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.