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...
HC ruled in favor of appellant regarding condonation of delay in customs appeal. While Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lacked authority to condone delay beyond 30 days, CESTAT erred in dismissing the subsequent appeal filed within statutory limits. Court found compelling reasons for delay, noting appellant's pending representation before third respondent on 22.08.2007 likely caused wait before filing appeal. CESTAT's cursory dismissal failed to consider relevant parameters. Questions of law on limitation resolved favorably, with exemption issue covered by previous CESTAT Bangalore ruling supporting appellant's position. Appeal succeeded with costs throughout.
HC ruled in favor of appellant regarding condonation of delay in customs appeal. While Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lacked authority to condone delay beyond 30 days, CESTAT erred in dismissing the subsequent appeal filed within statutory limits. Court found compelling reasons for delay, noting appellant's pending representation before third respondent on 22.08.2007 likely caused wait before filing appeal. CESTAT's cursory dismissal failed to consider relevant parameters. Questions of law on limitation resolved favorably, with exemption issue covered by previous CESTAT Bangalore ruling supporting appellant's position. Appeal succeeded with costs throughout.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
