Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 98394 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 upheld the confiscation of 14200 kg of battery scrap of foreign origin which was smuggled through unauthorized routes from Nepal. The appellant was found to be the mastermind and penalized Rs.25,000/-, which was not considered excessive given that battery scrap falls under hazardous goods category. The appellant's claim of procuring the scrap locally could not be substantiated as used batteries cannot be freely traded per the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001. The retraction of statements by co-noticees during adjudication was not given merit. The penalty on the appellant's accomplice, responsible for arranging invoices, was reduced to Rs.17,500/-. The appeal was partly allowed.
The CESTAT upheld the confiscation of 14200 kg of battery scrap of foreign origin which was smuggled through unauthorized routes from Nepal. The appellant was found to be the mastermind and penalized Rs.25,000/-, which was not considered excessive given that battery scrap falls under hazardous goods category. The appellant's claim of procuring the scrap locally could not be substantiated as used batteries cannot be freely traded per the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001. The retraction of statements by co-noticees during adjudication was not given merit. The penalty on the appellant's accomplice, responsible for arranging invoices, was reduced to Rs.17,500/-. The appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4920 
