Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6741 to 6760 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA are characterised as onerous penalty provisions and require the department to make specific, pointed findings establishing serious violations and an intention to evade duty before imposing penalties; mere reliance on a retracted statement and bills of entry without detailing the petitioner's role, the false declaration attributed to them, or the value misdeclared is inadequate. Confiscation must operate as the predicate for penal liability. The document concludes that the existing order lacks substantive reasoned findings and directs a fresh hearing and a reasoned de novo adjudication with specific charges delineating the petitioner's role.
Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA are characterised as onerous penalty provisions and require the department to make specific, pointed findings establishing serious violations and an intention to evade duty before imposing penalties; mere reliance on a retracted statement and bills of entry without detailing the petitioner's role, the false declaration attributed to them, or the value misdeclared is inadequate. Confiscation must operate as the predicate for penal liability. The document concludes that the existing order lacks substantive reasoned findings and directs a fresh hearing and a reasoned de novo adjudication with specific charges delineating the petitioner's role.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
