Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The Revenue argued that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. However, the High Court disagreed, ruling that the claim for deductions was bona fide and directly linked to the business profit. They emphasized that the mere rejection of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically result in the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the High Court concluded that no substantial questions of law arose from the case and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The Revenue argued that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. However, the High Court disagreed, ruling that the claim for deductions was bona fide and directly linked to the business profit. They emphasized that the mere rejection of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically result in the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the High Court concluded that no substantial questions of law arose from the case and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.