Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
A partner and partnership firm were considered for separate penalties arising from the same import contravention. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any statutory indication treating the firm as distinct from its partners for this penalty, the penalty on the firm covered the partners' contravention as well; the separate penalty on the partner under Section 112(a) was therefore set aside. For use of false or incorrect declaration documents under Section 114AA, the partner's unwithdrawn statement admitting participation in arranging the import in the firm's name was treated as sufficient evidence, so penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive and disproportionate.
A partner and partnership firm were considered for separate penalties arising from the same import contravention. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any statutory indication treating the firm as distinct from its partners for this penalty, the penalty on the firm covered the partners' contravention as well; the separate penalty on the partner under Section 112(a) was therefore set aside. For use of false or incorrect declaration documents under Section 114AA, the partner's unwithdrawn statement admitting participation in arranging the import in the firm's name was treated as sufficient evidence, so penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive and disproportionate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
