Penny-stock additions require transaction-specific evidence; general investigation material alone cannot establish undisclosed income or accommodation...
Transfer pricing comparability prioritises reliable external CUPs and foreign-currency LIBOR benchmarks for exports, borrowings and delayed receivable...
Section 153C satisfaction and seized electronic records sustained unexplained-investment addition, subject to proportionate ownership-share verificati...
The CESTAT held that the importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS entry Sr. No. 108 description (A) for their drugs and bulk drugs, which did not involve conditions prescribed under description (B). Since the duty demand itself was unsustainable against the company, the personal penalty imposed on their employee (the appellant) u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2012 for aiding or abetting duty evasion was set aside. The Tribunal observed no suppression of facts or mala fide intent by the company or the appellant in availing the notification. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the personal penalty was held unsustainable for an interpretational issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS entry Sr. No. 108 description (A) for their drugs and bulk drugs, which did not involve conditions prescribed under description (B). Since the duty demand itself was unsustainable against the company, the personal penalty imposed on their employee (the appellant) u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2012 for aiding or abetting duty evasion was set aside. The Tribunal observed no suppression of facts or mala fide intent by the company or the appellant in availing the notification. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the personal penalty was held unsustainable for an interpretational issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
