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...
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 
