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...
Customs case involving alleged undervaluation of imported goods and demand of illegal gratification by a Customs officer. The Tribunal found the statements of co-accused relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not reliable evidence against the appellant as cross-examination was denied. No specific allegation proved that the appellant's act rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Statements did not implicate appellant in receiving money. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act were set aside as there was no sustainable ground to impose them on the appellant. The order imposing penalties could not be upheld due to lack of evidence.
Customs case involving alleged undervaluation of imported goods and demand of illegal gratification by a Customs officer. The Tribunal found the statements of co-accused relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not reliable evidence against the appellant as cross-examination was denied. No specific allegation proved that the appellant's act rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Statements did not implicate appellant in receiving money. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act were set aside as there was no sustainable ground to impose them on the appellant. The order imposing penalties could not be upheld due to lack of evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
