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 CESTAT held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal concerning confiscation of gold jewelry, despite arguments of maintainability. While confiscation u/ss 77, 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act for non-declaration was valid, absolute confiscation was set aside. The appellant was allowed to redeem the gold jewelry on payment of Rs. 50,000 as fine, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The CESTAT found no justification for absolute confiscation, as the government does not survive on confiscatory proceeds, and wrongful import could be addressed by monetary measures. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The CESTAT held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal concerning confiscation of gold jewelry, despite arguments of maintainability. While confiscation u/ss 77, 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act for non-declaration was valid, absolute confiscation was set aside. The appellant was allowed to redeem the gold jewelry on payment of Rs. 50,000 as fine, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The CESTAT found no justification for absolute confiscation, as the government does not survive on confiscatory proceeds, and wrongful import could be addressed by monetary measures. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.