Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 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" ?
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
