Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 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 the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
