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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The appellant had sought adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three times permitted under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on Ishwar lal Mali Rathod, where the SC condemned the practice of mechanical adjournments, the Tribunal found no justification for granting additional adjournments. The SC had previously emphasized that parties who repeatedly seek adjournments despite specific warnings and opportunities effectively misuse judicial grace, warranting dismissal of their proceedings.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The appellant had sought adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three times permitted under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on Ishwar lal Mali Rathod, where the SC condemned the practice of mechanical adjournments, the Tribunal found no justification for granting additional adjournments. The SC had previously emphasized that parties who repeatedly seek adjournments despite specific warnings and opportunities effectively misuse judicial grace, warranting dismissal of their proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
