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...
Validity of SCN - 100% EOU - Private Warehouse - Cancellation of licence under Sub Section 2(b)of Section 58 granted to petitioner under Sub-Section (1) of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 - If Respondent No.2 was relying on any seizure panchanama or any other material, the same should have been mentioned in the show cause notice issued to afford fair and reasonable opportunity to petitioner to respond. That has not been done. Further, Respondent No.2 for issuing show cause notice has relied upon six show cause notices and an offence booked by DRI but none of these had attained finality. They were pending at various stages. - Thus, issuance of show cause notice itself was premature. - HC
Validity of SCN - 100% EOU - Private Warehouse - Cancellation of licence under Sub Section 2(b)of Section 58 granted to petitioner under Sub-Section (1) of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 - If Respondent No.2 was relying on any seizure panchanama or any other material, the same should have been mentioned in the show cause notice issued to afford fair and reasonable opportunity to petitioner to respond. That has not been done. Further, Respondent No.2 for issuing show cause notice has relied upon six show cause notices and an offence booked by DRI but none of these had attained finality. They were pending at various stages. - Thus, issuance of show cause notice itself was premature. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.