Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that the expression 'liable to penalty' u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 means that a person who knowingly makes a false declaration may be penalised, but it does not mandate imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority has discretion to judicially decide whether to impose penalty or not. Even if the case is decided against the appellant's firm for misdeclaration of machinery's year of manufacture to obtain EPCG license, the appellant cannot be penalised u/s 114AA as the alleged misdeclaration was not in any proceeding under the Customs Act but under the Foreign Trade Policy. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 114AA was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the expression 'liable to penalty' u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 means that a person who knowingly makes a false declaration may be penalised, but it does not mandate imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority has discretion to judicially decide whether to impose penalty or not. Even if the case is decided against the appellant's firm for misdeclaration of machinery's year of manufacture to obtain EPCG license, the appellant cannot be penalised u/s 114AA as the alleged misdeclaration was not in any proceeding under the Customs Act but under the Foreign Trade Policy. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 114AA was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
