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...
Page of 4778
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 95557 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4778
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
