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...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
CESTAT allowed appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
