Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Evidences indicate appellant was aware of smuggling activities involving diversion of smuggled cigarettes concealed in transit container, providing transportation and storage facilities. Appellant abetted illegal smuggling activities, conniving with smuggling racket. Adjudicating authority rightly imposed penalty on appellant u/s 112(b) of Customs Act for abetment. However, co-appellant played no role in clearance or smuggling of cigarettes through containers. Evidence lacks co-appellant's involvement in alleged smuggling. Penalty imposed on co-appellant u/s 112(b) unsustainable, set aside. Tribunal upholds penalty on appellant, sets aside penalty on co-appellant.
Evidences indicate appellant was aware of smuggling activities involving diversion of smuggled cigarettes concealed in transit container, providing transportation and storage facilities. Appellant abetted illegal smuggling activities, conniving with smuggling racket. Adjudicating authority rightly imposed penalty on appellant u/s 112(b) of Customs Act for abetment. However, co-appellant played no role in clearance or smuggling of cigarettes through containers. Evidence lacks co-appellant's involvement in alleged smuggling. Penalty imposed on co-appellant u/s 112(b) unsustainable, set aside. Tribunal upholds penalty on appellant, sets aside penalty on co-appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
