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...
Denial of relinquishment of title of part (balance) goods lying in the warehouse - Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The Appellate Tribunal notes the appellant's financial difficulties and their request for an extension of the warehousing period. Despite these challenges, the goods remained uncleared beyond the initial warehousing period. - The CESTAT determines that the appellant's relinquishment of title was made within the permissible timeframe, as no order for clearance of goods for home consumption had been issued. - Regarding penalties: the Tribunal observes that the appellant had already been penalized under section 117 of the Customs Act. Considering this penalty and the circumstances of the case, it refrains from imposing any further penalties on the appellant.
Denial of relinquishment of title of part (balance) goods lying in the warehouse - Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The Appellate Tribunal notes the appellant's financial difficulties and their request for an extension of the warehousing period. Despite these challenges, the goods remained uncleared beyond the initial warehousing period. - The CESTAT determines that the appellant's relinquishment of title was made within the permissible timeframe, as no order for clearance of goods for home consumption had been issued. - Regarding penalties: the Tribunal observes that the appellant had already been penalized under section 117 of the Customs Act. Considering this penalty and the circumstances of the case, it refrains from imposing any further penalties on the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
