Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 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" ?
ITAT held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
ITAT held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.