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 penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act against appellant for involvement in cigarette smuggling racket. While appellant retracted initial statement, subsequent testimony on 04.08.2015 reaffirmed earlier admissions. Multiple witness statements corroborated appellant's role in arranging CHA, transport, storage and container tampering. Tribunal rejected retraction as afterthought but reduced penalty from Rs. 50,00,000 to Rs. 25,00,000 considering proportionality to appellant's role. Finding established connivance in smuggling based on consistent testimonial evidence and appellant's own admission, CESTAT maintained liability while moderating quantum of penalty.
CESTAT upheld penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act against appellant for involvement in cigarette smuggling racket. While appellant retracted initial statement, subsequent testimony on 04.08.2015 reaffirmed earlier admissions. Multiple witness statements corroborated appellant's role in arranging CHA, transport, storage and container tampering. Tribunal rejected retraction as afterthought but reduced penalty from Rs. 50,00,000 to Rs. 25,00,000 considering proportionality to appellant's role. Finding established connivance in smuggling based on consistent testimonial evidence and appellant's own admission, CESTAT maintained liability while moderating quantum of penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
