Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7761 to 7780 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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.