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 that sale of capital goods within a 100% EOU to an overseas buyer without physical removal does not constitute deemed debonding requiring customs duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership transfer alone doesn't trigger duty liability - physical removal is the taxable event for warehoused goods. Since no physical movement occurred outside the EOU premises and no explicit deeming provision exists for treating sale as removal, no duty was payable. Additionally, proper verification by Central Excise authorities during EOU scheme exit precluded invocation of extended limitation period or penalties. The Tribunal set aside the demand, holding that mere transfer of ownership without actual removal cannot attract customs duty liability under existing legal framework.
CESTAT ruled that sale of capital goods within a 100% EOU to an overseas buyer without physical removal does not constitute deemed debonding requiring customs duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership transfer alone doesn't trigger duty liability - physical removal is the taxable event for warehoused goods. Since no physical movement occurred outside the EOU premises and no explicit deeming provision exists for treating sale as removal, no duty was payable. Additionally, proper verification by Central Excise authorities during EOU scheme exit precluded invocation of extended limitation period or penalties. The Tribunal set aside the demand, holding that mere transfer of ownership without actual removal cannot attract customs duty liability under existing legal framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
