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 upheld denial of Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemption under Notification dated 17.03.2012 for imported goods valued at Rs. 73.79 Crores during 2013-2017. Appellant failed to declare goods in Delhi VAT returns and provide supporting documentation, violating notification requirements for state destination declaration and VAT registration disclosure. Principal Commissioner's findings established fraudulent practices through false declarations and non-compliance with exemption conditions. Tribunal confirmed recovery of SAD with penalties, noting appellant's failure to controvert evidence of tax evasion and misrepresentation. Appeal dismissed, affirming original order requiring payment of duties and penalties.
CESTAT upheld denial of Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemption under Notification dated 17.03.2012 for imported goods valued at Rs. 73.79 Crores during 2013-2017. Appellant failed to declare goods in Delhi VAT returns and provide supporting documentation, violating notification requirements for state destination declaration and VAT registration disclosure. Principal Commissioner's findings established fraudulent practices through false declarations and non-compliance with exemption conditions. Tribunal confirmed recovery of SAD with penalties, noting appellant's failure to controvert evidence of tax evasion and misrepresentation. Appeal dismissed, affirming original order requiring payment of duties and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
