Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The appellant availed duty exemption under EPCG authorization for import of goods. Subsequently, the appellant remitted customs duty along with interest on 27.03.2024 under the Amnesty Scheme. The CESTAT held that since the appellant had remitted the duty and interest as per the Amnesty Scheme, there was no scope to confirm the penalty imposed for the alleged violation. Although the appellant disputed the leviability of penalty u/s 112(a), the CESTAT found that the Amnesty Scheme did not specify anything about the penalty. Consequently, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The appellant availed duty exemption under EPCG authorization for import of goods. Subsequently, the appellant remitted customs duty along with interest on 27.03.2024 under the Amnesty Scheme. The CESTAT held that since the appellant had remitted the duty and interest as per the Amnesty Scheme, there was no scope to confirm the penalty imposed for the alleged violation. Although the appellant disputed the leviability of penalty u/s 112(a), the CESTAT found that the Amnesty Scheme did not specify anything about the penalty. Consequently, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
