Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
CESTAT set aside customs penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA because the revenue failed to prove the alleged collusion and evasion scheme. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the appellant's own case and in identical matters, noting that the alleged fake certificates of origin had not been investigated or established through the Malaysian authorities. It also found that the electronic documents relied upon against the appellant were inadmissible in evidence. As the foundational allegations were not proved, the penalty basis failed and no penal liability survived.
CESTAT set aside customs penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA because the revenue failed to prove the alleged collusion and evasion scheme. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the appellant's own case and in identical matters, noting that the alleged fake certificates of origin had not been investigated or established through the Malaysian authorities. It also found that the electronic documents relied upon against the appellant were inadmissible in evidence. As the foundational allegations were not proved, the penalty basis failed and no penal liability survived.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
