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...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods being transported. Appellant arranged lorries but no proof of knowledge about contraband goods. Tribunal precedent cited where penalty was set aside due to absence of such knowledge. Lack of admissible evidence renders penalty unsustainable. Appeal allowed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods being transported. Appellant arranged lorries but no proof of knowledge about contraband goods. Tribunal precedent cited where penalty was set aside due to absence of such knowledge. Lack of admissible evidence renders penalty unsustainable. Appeal allowed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
