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 in favor of appellant, invalidating customs seizure and penalties due to procedural delays and insufficient evidence of smuggling. Commissioner (Appeals) took two years to conduct hearing and issue Order-in-Appeal, violating six-month timeframe under Section 128A(4A) of Customs Act 1962, without justification. Revenue failed to prove foreign origin of seized gold bars and ornaments (86.230 grams), while appellant consistently claimed legitimate purchase with supporting documentation from local residents. Tribunal emphasized Revenue's failure to discharge burden of proof regarding smuggled nature of goods and noted absence of chemical examination. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside due to unexplained procedural delays and substantive deficiencies in Revenue's case.
CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant, invalidating customs seizure and penalties due to procedural delays and insufficient evidence of smuggling. Commissioner (Appeals) took two years to conduct hearing and issue Order-in-Appeal, violating six-month timeframe under Section 128A(4A) of Customs Act 1962, without justification. Revenue failed to prove foreign origin of seized gold bars and ornaments (86.230 grams), while appellant consistently claimed legitimate purchase with supporting documentation from local residents. Tribunal emphasized Revenue's failure to discharge burden of proof regarding smuggled nature of goods and noted absence of chemical examination. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside due to unexplained procedural delays and substantive deficiencies in Revenue's case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
