Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee, a foreign-based company, initially failed to comply with the notice u/s 92D(3) within the statutory period of 60 days, responding on 25.03.2019 after a delay of 38 days. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the delay as minuscule and the reasons for non-compliance as bona fide and unintentional, given the peculiar circumstances of the assessee being a foreign entity and in the process of appointing a new authorized representative. The ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271G for non-compliance should be deleted, accepting the assessee's reasons for the inadvertent delay as reasonable. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty was allowed.
The assessee, a foreign-based company, initially failed to comply with the notice u/s 92D(3) within the statutory period of 60 days, responding on 25.03.2019 after a delay of 38 days. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the delay as minuscule and the reasons for non-compliance as bona fide and unintentional, given the peculiar circumstances of the assessee being a foreign entity and in the process of appointing a new authorized representative. The ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271G for non-compliance should be deleted, accepting the assessee's reasons for the inadvertent delay as reasonable. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
