Approved gratuity fund provisions remain deductible despite general actual-payment requirements, preventing revision of the allowed gratuity deduction...
Verification of intangible software expenditure and duplicated disallowances requires record-based reassessment before depreciation and income computa...
Cash receipt aggregation requires a single transaction, event or occasion; separate partner capital contributions cannot attract cash-receipt penaltie...
CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under Sections 114A and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner's finding of collusion between appellant and R.K. Pal was based on conjecture without substantive evidence. The appellant had paid correct duty through banking channels to R.K. Pal, who admitted misappropriating funds for personal gain. Section 114A penalty requires proof of collusion or willful misstatement, while Section 114AA demands evidence of knowingly submitting false declarations. Neither condition was met as appellant had no knowledge of R.K. Pal's fraudulent activities. The tribunal directed appropriation of appellant's deposit towards confirmed duty demand with interest. Appeal allowed.
CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under Sections 114A and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner's finding of collusion between appellant and R.K. Pal was based on conjecture without substantive evidence. The appellant had paid correct duty through banking channels to R.K. Pal, who admitted misappropriating funds for personal gain. Section 114A penalty requires proof of collusion or willful misstatement, while Section 114AA demands evidence of knowingly submitting false declarations. Neither condition was met as appellant had no knowledge of R.K. Pal's fraudulent activities. The tribunal directed appropriation of appellant's deposit towards confirmed duty demand with interest. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
