Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
For limitation under section 275(1)(c), the relevant starting point was the date on which the AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to the competent authority; the Tribunal treated 11/09/2015 as that date and held that the outer time-limit expired on 31/03/2016. Because the penalty order under section 271C was passed on 19/04/2016, it was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore quashed the penalty order.
For limitation under section 275(1)(c), the relevant starting point was the date on which the AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to the competent authority; the Tribunal treated 11/09/2015 as that date and held that the outer time-limit expired on 31/03/2016. Because the penalty order under section 271C was passed on 19/04/2016, it was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore quashed the penalty order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
