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 customs authorities cannot question the discharge certificate issued by DGFT regarding fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG License, unless DGFT itself takes a prior decision that the appellant had not discharged the obligation. As long as the appellant fulfilled the export obligation within the extended time granted by DGFT, it cannot be alleged by customs that the obligation was not met, even if the appellant made further exports after excluding those made by a disputed entity. Customs cannot go behind the benefits availed in the absence of adjudication by DGFT. An action for recovery of benefits must be preceded by an order from the competent FDTR authority that the certificate was illegally obtained.
The CESTAT held that customs authorities cannot question the discharge certificate issued by DGFT regarding fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG License, unless DGFT itself takes a prior decision that the appellant had not discharged the obligation. As long as the appellant fulfilled the export obligation within the extended time granted by DGFT, it cannot be alleged by customs that the obligation was not met, even if the appellant made further exports after excluding those made by a disputed entity. Customs cannot go behind the benefits availed in the absence of adjudication by DGFT. An action for recovery of benefits must be preceded by an order from the competent FDTR authority that the certificate was illegally obtained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
