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...
Demand of duty and Levy of penalty - Levy of penalty on Director - Clandestine removal - The demand was based on data printouts retrieved from a third party's computer, which the Appellant contested, citing procedural irregularities. However, the Tribunal found the electronic evidence admissible as it was certified by the Forensic Department. Additionally, the Appellant failed to provide evidence to counter the allegations, leading to the confirmation of the demand. Regarding the imposition of penalties on the directors, the Tribunal noted the lack of personal involvement and shifted the burden of proof to the Appellant. As there was no evidence implicating the directors, the penalties were set aside.
Demand of duty and Levy of penalty - Levy of penalty on Director - Clandestine removal - The demand was based on data printouts retrieved from a third party's computer, which the Appellant contested, citing procedural irregularities. However, the Tribunal found the electronic evidence admissible as it was certified by the Forensic Department. Additionally, the Appellant failed to provide evidence to counter the allegations, leading to the confirmation of the demand. Regarding the imposition of penalties on the directors, the Tribunal noted the lack of personal involvement and shifted the burden of proof to the Appellant. As there was no evidence implicating the directors, the penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
