Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 
of 4915 
