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 appellant imported pneumatic tyres without the mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) markings, violating the provisions of the BIS Act and the Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes of Automatic Vehicles (Quality Control) Order, 2009. The imported tyres were held to be "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, liable for confiscation u/s 111. The appellant also mis-declared the quantity, quality, and valuation of the imported goods. The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalties u/ss 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, and rejected the appellant's plea for redemption of the goods, citing public safety concerns and the risk of the goods falling into unauthorized hands.
The appellant imported pneumatic tyres without the mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) markings, violating the provisions of the BIS Act and the Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes of Automatic Vehicles (Quality Control) Order, 2009. The imported tyres were held to be "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, liable for confiscation u/s 111. The appellant also mis-declared the quantity, quality, and valuation of the imported goods. The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalties u/ss 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, and rejected the appellant's plea for redemption of the goods, citing public safety concerns and the risk of the goods falling into unauthorized hands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
