Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where customs duty was demanded for breach of notification conditions and penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that the reduced-penalty option under Section 114A could not be applied, because that concession is tied to cases where duty is determined under Section 28 and penalty follows that provision. As Section 112(ii), during the relevant period, prescribed only the penalty range and no 25% payment option, the penalty could not be sustained on that reduced basis. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of customs penalty strictly under Section 112(ii). The respondent's cross objections were treated as an appeal and also remanded for reconsideration of the penalty challenge.
Where customs duty was demanded for breach of notification conditions and penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that the reduced-penalty option under Section 114A could not be applied, because that concession is tied to cases where duty is determined under Section 28 and penalty follows that provision. As Section 112(ii), during the relevant period, prescribed only the penalty range and no 25% payment option, the penalty could not be sustained on that reduced basis. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of customs penalty strictly under Section 112(ii). The respondent's cross objections were treated as an appeal and also remanded for reconsideration of the penalty challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
