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...
Penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was levied against appellants, Customs House Agents (CHAs), for not exercising due diligence. The allegation was that appellants facilitated fraudulent export and availed undue drawback by not verifying exporters' antecedents. However, it was held that the act of not being diligent in verifying exporters' antecedents attracts provisions of CBLR, 2018, not penalty u/s 117. The Tribunal had previously ruled that penalty for not verifying exporter's KYC cannot be sustained. Consequently, the penalty imposed on appellants u/s 117 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was levied against appellants, Customs House Agents (CHAs), for not exercising due diligence. The allegation was that appellants facilitated fraudulent export and availed undue drawback by not verifying exporters' antecedents. However, it was held that the act of not being diligent in verifying exporters' antecedents attracts provisions of CBLR, 2018, not penalty u/s 117. The Tribunal had previously ruled that penalty for not verifying exporter's KYC cannot be sustained. Consequently, the penalty imposed on appellants u/s 117 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
