Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case pertains to the alleged misdeclaration of value of zinc ash, a restricted item under the Foreign Trade Policy, requiring an import license. The goods were classified as hazardous waste and subject to re-export u/r 17(2) of the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008. The authorities imposed a fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, in lieu of confiscation u/ss 111(d) and 111(m), and a penalty u/s 112. The Tribunal held that invoking Section 111(m) for enhanced value due to non-compliance with the Customs Valuation Rules was not justified. The misdescription did not warrant Section 111(m) as the goods had not cleared for home consumption, and no conspiracy was established. Re-export was ordered under the Hazardous Waste Rules, not as an alternative clearance option under the Customs Act. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal stated that importers have a statutory right to re-export prohibited goods, which cannot be overlooked by authorities. The issue of undervaluation arises after determining the goods' prohibited status. Consequently, the redemption fine u/s 125 and penalty u/s 112 were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The case pertains to the alleged misdeclaration of value of zinc ash, a restricted item under the Foreign Trade Policy, requiring an import license. The goods were classified as hazardous waste and subject to re-export u/r 17(2) of the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008. The authorities imposed a fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, in lieu of confiscation u/ss 111(d) and 111(m), and a penalty u/s 112. The Tribunal held that invoking Section 111(m) for enhanced value due to non-compliance with the Customs Valuation Rules was not justified. The misdescription did not warrant Section 111(m) as the goods had not cleared for home consumption, and no conspiracy was established. Re-export was ordered under the Hazardous Waste Rules, not as an alternative clearance option under the Customs Act. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal stated that importers have a statutory right to re-export prohibited goods, which cannot be overlooked by authorities. The issue of undervaluation arises after determining the goods' prohibited status. Consequently, the redemption fine u/s 125 and penalty u/s 112 were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
