Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1121 to 1140 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.