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...
Jurisdiction of Preventive officer to initiate any proceeding including proceeding u/s 110(1) - Show Cause Notice for seized goods - The High Court determined that the Preventive Officer did not have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at the airport, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata. - The seizure did not comply with Section 110(1) of the Customs Act as the Preventive Officer did not record the necessary satisfaction for believing the goods were liable for confiscation. - Consequently, the actions taken by the Preventive Officer were declared non-est (invalid), and the goods were ordered to be returned to the petitioner.
Jurisdiction of Preventive officer to initiate any proceeding including proceeding u/s 110(1) - Show Cause Notice for seized goods - The High Court determined that the Preventive Officer did not have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at the airport, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata. - The seizure did not comply with Section 110(1) of the Customs Act as the Preventive Officer did not record the necessary satisfaction for believing the goods were liable for confiscation. - Consequently, the actions taken by the Preventive Officer were declared non-est (invalid), and the goods were ordered to be returned to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
