Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported goods declared as apatite calcium phosphate were held classifiable under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 covers only natural products in crude form or products processed merely mechanically or physically, while the evidence showed calcination and chemical additions. Documentary material, including supplier emails and the importer's own conduct in seeking removal of calcination references, established deliberate misdescription; the differential duty with interest was therefore upheld. Since the goods did not match the Bills of Entry, confiscation under section 111(m) and redemption fine were sustained. Intentional misclassification to evade duty attracted penalty under section 114A, and the penalties on the director and manager were also upheld for manipulating and assisting in false customs documentation.
Imported goods declared as apatite calcium phosphate were held classifiable under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 covers only natural products in crude form or products processed merely mechanically or physically, while the evidence showed calcination and chemical additions. Documentary material, including supplier emails and the importer's own conduct in seeking removal of calcination references, established deliberate misdescription; the differential duty with interest was therefore upheld. Since the goods did not match the Bills of Entry, confiscation under section 111(m) and redemption fine were sustained. Intentional misclassification to evade duty attracted penalty under section 114A, and the penalties on the director and manager were also upheld for manipulating and assisting in false customs documentation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
