Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
