Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the customs broker, setting aside the revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty under CBLR. It held that the alleged violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) were unsustainable. For Regulation 10(a), there was no evidentiary basis in the SCN to conclude lack of authorization. Findings under Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) were based on statements not relied upon in the SCN and no material showed failure to advise or provision of incorrect information. For Regulation 10(n), the broker had duly verified IEC and GSTIN through authentic documents, and could not be faulted for relying on government-issued credentials.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the customs broker, setting aside the revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty under CBLR. It held that the alleged violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) were unsustainable. For Regulation 10(a), there was no evidentiary basis in the SCN to conclude lack of authorization. Findings under Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) were based on statements not relied upon in the SCN and no material showed failure to advise or provision of incorrect information. For Regulation 10(n), the broker had duly verified IEC and GSTIN through authentic documents, and could not be faulted for relying on government-issued credentials.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
