Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The CESTAT erred in holding the appellant vicariously liable despite finding no contravention of Regulations 10(a), (d), (e), (m), and (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2018. Once the CESTAT concluded that the charges against the appellant under these regulations were without merit, the question of vicarious liability should not have arisen. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the imposition of penalty based on vicarious liability when no substantive violation was established.
The CESTAT erred in holding the appellant vicariously liable despite finding no contravention of Regulations 10(a), (d), (e), (m), and (n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2018. Once the CESTAT concluded that the charges against the appellant under these regulations were without merit, the question of vicarious liability should not have arisen. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the imposition of penalty based on vicarious liability when no substantive violation was established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
