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 appeal of M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
