Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 confiscation of gold and penalties imposed on the appellant were unjustified. The tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied primarily on statements that lacked evidentiary value due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.138B of the Customs Act. In this town seizure case, the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden of proving foreign origin or smuggling of the gold. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with s.138B was not contingent upon whether cross-examination was sought, but was a mandatory procedural requirement. Conversely, the appellant produced legitimate purchase invoices which were confirmed by sellers. Without substantive evidence of smuggling, no penalty could be imposed under s.112(b). Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that confiscation of gold and penalties imposed on the appellant were unjustified. The tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied primarily on statements that lacked evidentiary value due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.138B of the Customs Act. In this town seizure case, the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden of proving foreign origin or smuggling of the gold. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with s.138B was not contingent upon whether cross-examination was sought, but was a mandatory procedural requirement. Conversely, the appellant produced legitimate purchase invoices which were confirmed by sellers. Without substantive evidence of smuggling, no penalty could be imposed under s.112(b). Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.