Your Ad Here

sitemap   Home | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Apply for News Correspondent  
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax
 
 
News Search:
 
 
« From the Courts »
 The Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158 BFA (2) of the said Act
 It cannot be said that by the issue of bonus shares, the Company had distributed its reserve fund to the shareholders even though it had retained the entire amount with it in the share capital account
 The effect of fluctuation of foreign exchange rate resulting in increase of cost of plant and machinery
 Entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the I T Act
 Notional Liability: Loss due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates
 Business loss: Business expenditure - Notional Liability: Loss due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates
 Duty of Tribunal - Passing ex-parte order
 Exemption-Deduction: Export oriented unit - Export of software purchase from others
 The Supreme court finally ruled that the mandatory penalty under section 11AC of the central excise act is really mandatory
 Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed

SC: Amount of penalty should not be more than the chargeable duty
December, 03rd 2007

The Supreme Court has ruled that the amount of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act could not be more than the amount equal to the chargeable duty.
 
In this case, UK Enterprises imported integrated circuits made by Philips Ltd, Motorola Ltd and NEC from Hong Kong. The customs commissioner in Goa found that the items were heavily undervalued and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000.
 
On appeal, the Customs Tribunal raised it to Rs 10 lakh, which was more than the duty demanded which was Rs 4.91 lakh. The firm appealed to the Supreme Court which reduced the penalty to the latter amount.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2006 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Multimedia Presentations Multimedia Solutions 3D Solutions Corporate Presentations Business Presentations Multimedia Presentation India M