Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7501 to 7520 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalties under s.112(b) for consignments imported in the name of non-existent firms were unsustainable because the appellants neither claimed ownership nor was there evidence linking them to those consignments; mere stuffing of multiple importers' LCL cargo in the same container could not fasten liability for another importer's violations, so the related penalties were set aside. Confiscation of goods imported using a lent IEC was also unsustainable since s.119 applies only where goods are used to conceal other goods, and the concerned goods were separate and not concealment devices; consequential penalties were therefore quashed and the confiscation order set aside to that extent, with the appeal allowed - CESTAT
Penalties under s.112(b) for consignments imported in the name of non-existent firms were unsustainable because the appellants neither claimed ownership nor was there evidence linking them to those consignments; mere stuffing of multiple importers' LCL cargo in the same container could not fasten liability for another importer's violations, so the related penalties were set aside. Confiscation of goods imported using a lent IEC was also unsustainable since s.119 applies only where goods are used to conceal other goods, and the concerned goods were separate and not concealment devices; consequential penalties were therefore quashed and the confiscation order set aside to that extent, with the appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
