Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
