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...
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any time limitation for issuing a show cause notice (SCN) for confiscation or penalty imposition. The appellant's plea of the notice being time-barred u/ss 111(m) or 124 cannot be accepted due to the absence of a time limit envisaged in these provisions. The reliance on the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS MMK JEWELLERS & ANOTHER is inapplicable as it pertained to a notice u/s 28 and penalty u/s 114(A). Based on the Mumbai Police report, it is evident that the imported car was mis-declared by tampering the chassis number and year of manufacture, warranting value redetermination at Rs.10,86,735/- u/r 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any time limitation for issuing a show cause notice (SCN) for confiscation or penalty imposition. The appellant's plea of the notice being time-barred u/ss 111(m) or 124 cannot be accepted due to the absence of a time limit envisaged in these provisions. The reliance on the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS MMK JEWELLERS & ANOTHER is inapplicable as it pertained to a notice u/s 28 and penalty u/s 114(A). Based on the Mumbai Police report, it is evident that the imported car was mis-declared by tampering the chassis number and year of manufacture, warranting value redetermination at Rs.10,86,735/- u/r 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
