Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
