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 penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act for smuggling foreign gold. The tribunal held that statements without cross-examination are inadmissible. The appellant no. 2 wasn't actively involved in smuggling, so penalties were unsustainable. Appellant no. 1's implication lacked evidence and violated section 138B. Both appellants didn't claim gold ownership, so burden of proof u/s 123 didn't apply. Penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) were unsupportable. Thus, penalties on both appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The case involved penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act for smuggling foreign gold. The tribunal held that statements without cross-examination are inadmissible. The appellant no. 2 wasn't actively involved in smuggling, so penalties were unsustainable. Appellant no. 1's implication lacked evidence and violated section 138B. Both appellants didn't claim gold ownership, so burden of proof u/s 123 didn't apply. Penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) were unsupportable. Thus, penalties on both appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
