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 overturned absolute confiscation of undeclared gold jewelry seized at airport from Dubai returnee. Following precedent in N. Kaliyamoorthy case, court held that absolute confiscation under Section 125 of Customs Act 1962 was inappropriate. While undeclared goods violating import conditions qualify as "prohibited" and are subject to confiscation, complete forfeiture was deemed excessive. Court remanded case to customs authority with directions to permit redemption upon payment of appropriate fine. Jurisdictional challenge by respondents was dismissed as cause of action arose within court's jurisdiction. Original confiscation order and subsequent appellate confirmation were set aside. Petition succeeded with modified penalty approach allowing for possible recovery of goods.
HC overturned absolute confiscation of undeclared gold jewelry seized at airport from Dubai returnee. Following precedent in N. Kaliyamoorthy case, court held that absolute confiscation under Section 125 of Customs Act 1962 was inappropriate. While undeclared goods violating import conditions qualify as "prohibited" and are subject to confiscation, complete forfeiture was deemed excessive. Court remanded case to customs authority with directions to permit redemption upon payment of appropriate fine. Jurisdictional challenge by respondents was dismissed as cause of action arose within court's jurisdiction. Original confiscation order and subsequent appellate confirmation were set aside. Petition succeeded with modified penalty approach allowing for possible recovery of goods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
