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...
Penalty u/s 114(i) on CHA - Export of "Carbon Black" - Obligation of CHA for the unauthorized loading of the container without LEO (Let Export Order) - The Tribunal emphasized that prior knowledge of the offending goods and mens rea is required for invoking section 114(iii). The case law cited by the department did not support their position in the absence of mens rea. - The Tribunal concluded that there was no act of omission or commission on the part of the Appellant that rendered the goods liable for confiscation under section 113(g). The penalty imposed was not justified.
Penalty u/s 114(i) on CHA - Export of "Carbon Black" - Obligation of CHA for the unauthorized loading of the container without LEO (Let Export Order) - The Tribunal emphasized that prior knowledge of the offending goods and mens rea is required for invoking section 114(iii). The case law cited by the department did not support their position in the absence of mens rea. - The Tribunal concluded that there was no act of omission or commission on the part of the Appellant that rendered the goods liable for confiscation under section 113(g). The penalty imposed was not justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.