Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund granted twice, leading to the grant of refund again by suppressing the fact of suo moto availment of credit. The issue revolved around the levy of penalty u/s 11AC of the Act, 1944, which requires the presence of mens rea. The court held that under Section 11AC, penalty is imposed when there is an intention to evade duty payment, such as through fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. In this case, the appellant's mens rea was established by their conduct of obtaining the refund twice while concealing the credit availment. The court found no errors or perversity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund granted twice, leading to the grant of refund again by suppressing the fact of suo moto availment of credit. The issue revolved around the levy of penalty u/s 11AC of the Act, 1944, which requires the presence of mens rea. The court held that under Section 11AC, penalty is imposed when there is an intention to evade duty payment, such as through fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. In this case, the appellant's mens rea was established by their conduct of obtaining the refund twice while concealing the credit availment. The court found no errors or perversity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
