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 CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant, a small-scale industry printer. The appellant had printed exercise notebooks for a third party without being declared as a supporting manufacturer in the EPCG license. The Tribunal determined that as a small vendor, the appellant could not reasonably be expected to know the export scheme details. The appellant's good faith was evidenced by proper payment of excise duty and accurate ER-1 returns. The Department failed to establish specific abetment by the appellant in any contravention committed by the principal exporter. Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant, a small-scale industry printer. The appellant had printed exercise notebooks for a third party without being declared as a supporting manufacturer in the EPCG license. The Tribunal determined that as a small vendor, the appellant could not reasonably be expected to know the export scheme details. The appellant's good faith was evidenced by proper payment of excise duty and accurate ER-1 returns. The Department failed to establish specific abetment by the appellant in any contravention committed by the principal exporter. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
