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...
Appellant, a proprietary firm, was levied penalty for involvement in illegality by not receiving goods and receiving invoices only with intention to avail CENVAT credit and clearing goods without payment of duty. Main appellant settled dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019. Tribunal held that discrepancy in stock at consignee's factory cannot lead to adverse inference against appellant as it could be due to various reasons, not attributable solely to appellant among all suppliers. Consignee made payments by cheques for goods supplied under 18 invoices. Respondent did not dispute RG 23D Register and quarterly CENVAT returns showing details of credit availed and passed on. Considering these facts and main appellant settling dues under Scheme allowing waiver of interest and penalty to co-noticee, penalty against appellant as co-noticee was set aside. Appeal allowed.
Appellant, a proprietary firm, was levied penalty for involvement in illegality by not receiving goods and receiving invoices only with intention to avail CENVAT credit and clearing goods without payment of duty. Main appellant settled dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019. Tribunal held that discrepancy in stock at consignee's factory cannot lead to adverse inference against appellant as it could be due to various reasons, not attributable solely to appellant among all suppliers. Consignee made payments by cheques for goods supplied under 18 invoices. Respondent did not dispute RG 23D Register and quarterly CENVAT returns showing details of credit availed and passed on. Considering these facts and main appellant settling dues under Scheme allowing waiver of interest and penalty to co-noticee, penalty against appellant as co-noticee was set aside. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.