Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Customs penalty on company officers turned on whether acts or omissions rendered goods liable to confiscation and whether the officers acted personally or only in their official capacity. The Tribunal's reduction of the Chairman and Managing Director's penalty was upheld because liability under Sections 112 and 114 remained intact and moderation of quantum was a factual exercise, not a substantial question of law absent perversity. Penalty on the other officers was also sustained as having been correctly set aside, since they were found to be employees acting on company instructions with no personal dealings in the goods; that factual finding justified non-imposition of personal penalty. Appeals were dismissed.
Customs penalty on company officers turned on whether acts or omissions rendered goods liable to confiscation and whether the officers acted personally or only in their official capacity. The Tribunal's reduction of the Chairman and Managing Director's penalty was upheld because liability under Sections 112 and 114 remained intact and moderation of quantum was a factual exercise, not a substantial question of law absent perversity. Penalty on the other officers was also sustained as having been correctly set aside, since they were found to be employees acting on company instructions with no personal dealings in the goods; that factual finding justified non-imposition of personal penalty. Appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
