Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a difference in depreciation treatment of a biometric device. The issue was whether the device should be classified under 'Plant and Machinery' or 'Computer' block for depreciation. The ITAT found the claim was not false but a matter of interpretation. Merely disagreeing with the claim does not warrant a penalty if the assessee provided all relevant details. Citing a precedent from Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a difference in depreciation treatment of a biometric device. The issue was whether the device should be classified under 'Plant and Machinery' or 'Computer' block for depreciation. The ITAT found the claim was not false but a matter of interpretation. Merely disagreeing with the claim does not warrant a penalty if the assessee provided all relevant details. Citing a precedent from Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
