Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Foreign remittance compliance turned on whether the appellant could prove import through valid Bills of Entry linked to the impugned remittances and asserted high sea sale documents. The Tribunal found that the Bill of Entry related to the same Bill of Lading, but the handwritten notation relied on to show coverage of all three remittances was partly illegible and not shown to have been made by authorised personnel. Customs records did not establish duty on the full amount claimed, and RBI confirmed that the relevant Bills of Entry had not been submitted to the Authorised Dealer. Contravention was therefore sustained, but the penalty was reduced and the pre-deposit adjusted.
Foreign remittance compliance turned on whether the appellant could prove import through valid Bills of Entry linked to the impugned remittances and asserted high sea sale documents. The Tribunal found that the Bill of Entry related to the same Bill of Lading, but the handwritten notation relied on to show coverage of all three remittances was partly illegible and not shown to have been made by authorised personnel. Customs records did not establish duty on the full amount claimed, and RBI confirmed that the relevant Bills of Entry had not been submitted to the Authorised Dealer. Contravention was therefore sustained, but the penalty was reduced and the pre-deposit adjusted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.