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...
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation order and penalty regarding an allegedly smuggled motorcycle. The Tribunal determined Hyderabad Customs had proper jurisdiction as the vehicle was registered with RTA Hyderabad. However, the confiscation u/s 111(d), (i), and (j) of Customs Act was unsustainable as the bike wasn't "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33), wasn't concealed, and no evidence showed unauthorized removal from customs area. The penalty u/s 112(b) was also invalidated as there was no proof the appellant knew the bike was liable for confiscation. The absence of action against the original seller (Sunil Lawrence) did not affect the validity of show cause notice or subsequent proceedings.
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation order and penalty regarding an allegedly smuggled motorcycle. The Tribunal determined Hyderabad Customs had proper jurisdiction as the vehicle was registered with RTA Hyderabad. However, the confiscation u/s 111(d), (i), and (j) of Customs Act was unsustainable as the bike wasn't "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33), wasn't concealed, and no evidence showed unauthorized removal from customs area. The penalty u/s 112(b) was also invalidated as there was no proof the appellant knew the bike was liable for confiscation. The absence of action against the original seller (Sunil Lawrence) did not affect the validity of show cause notice or subsequent proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
