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...
The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director's directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.
The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director's directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
