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...
Denial of benefit of Value Based Advance Licenses (VABAL) to the appellants-transferees and the recovery of customs duty, along with the imposition of penalties. The key points are: The DGFT authorities took action on certain licenses, but there was no indication of cancellation by them for the three VABAL licenses in question. The impugned order directing duty recovery has no legal basis and is contrary to CBEC instructions. The Tribunal held that since the VABAL licenses were not obtained through fraud, the ratio of the Supreme Court case involving forged documents does not apply. The DGFT authorities issued amendments for the three licenses, indicating they were not found to involve forgery. Precedents establish that if licenses were valid at import time, subsequent cancellation on fraud grounds does not impact the transferee. The benefit of notification cannot be denied to the transferee on the ground of breach of conditions. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands, interest, and penalties is unsustainable, and the appeal is allowed.
Denial of benefit of Value Based Advance Licenses (VABAL) to the appellants-transferees and the recovery of customs duty, along with the imposition of penalties. The key points are: The DGFT authorities took action on certain licenses, but there was no indication of cancellation by them for the three VABAL licenses in question. The impugned order directing duty recovery has no legal basis and is contrary to CBEC instructions. The Tribunal held that since the VABAL licenses were not obtained through fraud, the ratio of the Supreme Court case involving forged documents does not apply. The DGFT authorities issued amendments for the three licenses, indicating they were not found to involve forgery. Precedents establish that if licenses were valid at import time, subsequent cancellation on fraud grounds does not impact the transferee. The benefit of notification cannot be denied to the transferee on the ground of breach of conditions. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands, interest, and penalties is unsustainable, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
