Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
