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...
The case involves contravention of FERA provisions u/s 8(1), 48, and 49 r.w.s. 72(c) due to delivering cargo to Dubai instead of Russia, causing foreign exchange loss. Authenticity of incriminating letters confirmed. Suspected collusion between exporter, shipping company, and non-existent Russian buyers. Lack of legal action against shipping company raises suspicion. Appellant's diversion to Dubai contradicted export requirements. Failure to provide export documents strengthens case against appellant. Directors held liable u/s 68 FERA. Penalty upheld for company and director due to culpability in export irregularities.
The case involves contravention of FERA provisions u/s 8(1), 48, and 49 r.w.s. 72(c) due to delivering cargo to Dubai instead of Russia, causing foreign exchange loss. Authenticity of incriminating letters confirmed. Suspected collusion between exporter, shipping company, and non-existent Russian buyers. Lack of legal action against shipping company raises suspicion. Appellant's diversion to Dubai contradicted export requirements. Failure to provide export documents strengthens case against appellant. Directors held liable u/s 68 FERA. Penalty upheld for company and director due to culpability in export irregularities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
