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...
Levy of excise duty on the liquor destroyed in fire - Demand raised against the writ petitioner company (respondent herein) towards loss of excise revenue because of destruction of liquor in fire - As noticed, the incident in question had not been because of any forces of nature and cannot be said to be an ‘act of God’. - Even if the present case is taken to be that of inadvertence or of unintentional omission on the part of the respondent company, it would fall within the definition of “negligence” for the purpose of Rule 709 of the Excise Manual. - SC
Levy of excise duty on the liquor destroyed in fire - Demand raised against the writ petitioner company (respondent herein) towards loss of excise revenue because of destruction of liquor in fire - As noticed, the incident in question had not been because of any forces of nature and cannot be said to be an ‘act of God’. - Even if the present case is taken to be that of inadvertence or of unintentional omission on the part of the respondent company, it would fall within the definition of “negligence” for the purpose of Rule 709 of the Excise Manual. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
