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...
Penalty under s.114(i) was premised on alleged failure by the customs broker to verify KYC and antecedents of the exporter, facilitating fraudulent exports. Since identical allegations had already been adjudicated in parallel broker-licensing proceedings and were found not proved, re-imposition of penalty on the same factual foundation was held unsustainable and was set aside. Penalty under s.114AA required proof that the broker submitted forged/fabricated documents or knowingly used such documents; the record showed no authority or practical scope for the broker to examine container contents, and the investigation yielded no concrete evidence of connivance, benefit, or specific role beyond conjecture, so this penalty was also set aside. Appeal allowed - CESTAT
Penalty under s.114(i) was premised on alleged failure by the customs broker to verify KYC and antecedents of the exporter, facilitating fraudulent exports. Since identical allegations had already been adjudicated in parallel broker-licensing proceedings and were found not proved, re-imposition of penalty on the same factual foundation was held unsustainable and was set aside. Penalty under s.114AA required proof that the broker submitted forged/fabricated documents or knowingly used such documents; the record showed no authority or practical scope for the broker to examine container contents, and the investigation yielded no concrete evidence of connivance, benefit, or specific role beyond conjecture, so this penalty was also set aside. Appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
