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...
Certain Export Oriented Units (EOUs) fraudulently obtained Advance Licences/Advance Release Orders (AROs) without actual manufacture or removal of excisable goods. They falsified records to show clearance of goods against these licences/AROs to fulfill export obligations, despite no physical movement of goods. The appellant, acting as an agent for purchase and sale of these licences/AROs, was not a party to the fraud committed by EOUs. Without knowledge of such fraud, the appellant cannot be penalized. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under relevant rules and acts for lack of culpable involvement in the fraudulent activities of EOUs.
Certain Export Oriented Units (EOUs) fraudulently obtained Advance Licences/Advance Release Orders (AROs) without actual manufacture or removal of excisable goods. They falsified records to show clearance of goods against these licences/AROs to fulfill export obligations, despite no physical movement of goods. The appellant, acting as an agent for purchase and sale of these licences/AROs, was not a party to the fraud committed by EOUs. Without knowledge of such fraud, the appellant cannot be penalized. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under relevant rules and acts for lack of culpable involvement in the fraudulent activities of EOUs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
