Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (customs clearing agent/employee), holding that there was no evidentiary basis to establish mens rea or active participation in diversion of imported goods subject to an advance licence; the record showed only handling of documents and no admission or statement implicating the appellant in physical delivery to an unauthorised location. For want of proof linking the appellant to the diversion or knowledge thereof, the Tribunal quashed the penalty and allowed the appeal, remitting no further relief.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (customs clearing agent/employee), holding that there was no evidentiary basis to establish mens rea or active participation in diversion of imported goods subject to an advance licence; the record showed only handling of documents and no admission or statement implicating the appellant in physical delivery to an unauthorised location. For want of proof linking the appellant to the diversion or knowledge thereof, the Tribunal quashed the penalty and allowed the appeal, remitting no further relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
