Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Foreign customs declarations and importer admissions established undervaluation, supporting sequential value redetermination, differential duty, and m...
Customs seizure safeguards prevent detention-based limitation avoidance and invalidate provisional release conditions for imported vehicles under an i...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the appellant-employer could not be treated as an "assessee in default" under s.201(1) for non-deduction of TDS under s.192 on Leave Travel Concession reimbursements for AY 2016-17. In view of subsisting interim directions of the Madras HC during the relevant financial year, the appellant had no operative obligation to deduct tax "at the time of payment," a precondition for invoking s.201. Consequently, interest under s.201(1A) was also held inapplicable. HC further noted that the first proviso to s.201(1) protects a payer where the payee has duly accounted for such amounts in the return of income. Earlier adverse findings of the SC for a different assessment year were distinguished. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
HC held that the appellant-employer could not be treated as an "assessee in default" under s.201(1) for non-deduction of TDS under s.192 on Leave Travel Concession reimbursements for AY 2016-17. In view of subsisting interim directions of the Madras HC during the relevant financial year, the appellant had no operative obligation to deduct tax "at the time of payment," a precondition for invoking s.201. Consequently, interest under s.201(1A) was also held inapplicable. HC further noted that the first proviso to s.201(1) protects a payer where the payee has duly accounted for such amounts in the return of income. Earlier adverse findings of the SC for a different assessment year were distinguished. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.