Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5881 to 5900 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
