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 High Court addressed the dismissal of a restoration application for appeal u/s 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, focusing on compliance with mandatory pre-deposit. The appellant had deposited Rs. 15 lakhs in 2017, showing good faith. The Court noted the appellant's compliance with Sec. 129 A (1) of the Act and pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal should have allowed the appellant to pursue the appeal after addressing the pending Writ Petition. Dismissing the appeal in limine was deemed unreasonable. The Tribunal should have given the appellant a chance to challenge the imposed penalty of Rs. 2 crores on its merits. The appeal was ultimately allowed.
The High Court addressed the dismissal of a restoration application for appeal u/s 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, focusing on compliance with mandatory pre-deposit. The appellant had deposited Rs. 15 lakhs in 2017, showing good faith. The Court noted the appellant's compliance with Sec. 129 A (1) of the Act and pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal should have allowed the appellant to pursue the appeal after addressing the pending Writ Petition. Dismissing the appeal in limine was deemed unreasonable. The Tribunal should have given the appellant a chance to challenge the imposed penalty of Rs. 2 crores on its merits. The appeal was ultimately allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
