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 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.
CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
