Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
