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...
The case involved a penalty u/s 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of export goods leading to undue duty drawback benefit. The issue was the admissibility of statements u/s 138B and WhatsApp messages u/s 138C as evidence. The Appellate Tribunal held that statements were inadmissible as witnesses were not examined or offered for cross-examination, violating legal practices. Similarly, WhatsApp messages lacked specific mention of appellant's involvement and were not obtained following the procedure u/s 138C. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakh.
The case involved a penalty u/s 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of export goods leading to undue duty drawback benefit. The issue was the admissibility of statements u/s 138B and WhatsApp messages u/s 138C as evidence. The Appellate Tribunal held that statements were inadmissible as witnesses were not examined or offered for cross-examination, violating legal practices. Similarly, WhatsApp messages lacked specific mention of appellant's involvement and were not obtained following the procedure u/s 138C. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
