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...
Appellant's penalties u/ss 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside. Reliance solely on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence found inadequate to establish appellant's guilt regarding mis-declaration of goods and manipulation of import documents. No evidence produced by revenue to substantiate appellant's role in arranging finance, purchasing disputed goods from China, or providing manipulated import documents. CESTAT held statements of co-accused without independent corroboration insufficient legal evidence. Lack of evidence regarding appellant's physical acts related to disputed goods or signed declarations rendered penalties unjustified. Appeal allowed.
Appellant's penalties u/ss 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside. Reliance solely on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence found inadequate to establish appellant's guilt regarding mis-declaration of goods and manipulation of import documents. No evidence produced by revenue to substantiate appellant's role in arranging finance, purchasing disputed goods from China, or providing manipulated import documents. CESTAT held statements of co-accused without independent corroboration insufficient legal evidence. Lack of evidence regarding appellant's physical acts related to disputed goods or signed declarations rendered penalties unjustified. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
