Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that the order of suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker license was passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, violating Regulation 20(2) of CBLR 2013. However, the legality of the suspension order could not be decided as the challenged order was the revocation dated 12.02.2015. The gravity of the alleged offense did not warrant revocation, which is disproportionate punishment. The appellant must have suffered enough financially, acting as a deterrent. Permanent revocation would adversely impact the appellant's family and employees. The appeal was partly allowed, ordering re-issuance of the Customs Broker License subject to procedural requirements, while upholding the forfeiture of the security deposit.
The CESTAT held that the order of suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker license was passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, violating Regulation 20(2) of CBLR 2013. However, the legality of the suspension order could not be decided as the challenged order was the revocation dated 12.02.2015. The gravity of the alleged offense did not warrant revocation, which is disproportionate punishment. The appellant must have suffered enough financially, acting as a deterrent. Permanent revocation would adversely impact the appellant's family and employees. The appeal was partly allowed, ordering re-issuance of the Customs Broker License subject to procedural requirements, while upholding the forfeiture of the security deposit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
