Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The key holdings were: 1) Since the goods (areca nuts) were absolutely confiscated, the demand for duty on the appellants is unsustainable. 2) Penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted as there was no case of paper transactions without actual import of goods. 3) Penalty imposed on the individual partners of the appellant firm is set aside, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision that separate penalty cannot be imposed on partners once the firm has been penalized. Consequently, all appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.
The key holdings were: 1) Since the goods (areca nuts) were absolutely confiscated, the demand for duty on the appellants is unsustainable. 2) Penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted as there was no case of paper transactions without actual import of goods. 3) Penalty imposed on the individual partners of the appellant firm is set aside, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision that separate penalty cannot be imposed on partners once the firm has been penalized. Consequently, all appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
