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 High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Tribunal. The assessee had fraudulently claimed and received refund of 4% Special Additional Duty by submitting forged documents to the Customs authorities, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The adjudicating authorities rightly invoked the extended period of recovery u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordered recovery of the erroneously sanctioned refund along with interest and penalty by denying the benefits under the said notification. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no substantial question of law arising from the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Tribunal. The assessee had fraudulently claimed and received refund of 4% Special Additional Duty by submitting forged documents to the Customs authorities, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The adjudicating authorities rightly invoked the extended period of recovery u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordered recovery of the erroneously sanctioned refund along with interest and penalty by denying the benefits under the said notification. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no substantial question of law arising from the case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
