Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97750 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
