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...
Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants' request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.
Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants' request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
