Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the appeal and upheld CESTAT's imposition of penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the CA, 1962 for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation, finding no substantial question of law. The G-card holder (Appellant A) was absolved by CESTAT for lack of signature or interaction; the H-card holder (Appellant B) was held complicit based on admissions and prior involvement in clearance of similar consignments; the supervisor (Appellant C) was held liable for active supervision and approval of clearance documents. CESTAT's sympathetic reduction of penalties was endorsed; appellants must deposit the imposed penalties within three months. Appeal dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appeal and upheld CESTAT's imposition of penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the CA, 1962 for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation, finding no substantial question of law. The G-card holder (Appellant A) was absolved by CESTAT for lack of signature or interaction; the H-card holder (Appellant B) was held complicit based on admissions and prior involvement in clearance of similar consignments; the supervisor (Appellant C) was held liable for active supervision and approval of clearance documents. CESTAT's sympathetic reduction of penalties was endorsed; appellants must deposit the imposed penalties within three months. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
