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 held that confiscation of gold and penalties imposed on the appellant were unjustified. The tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied primarily on statements that lacked evidentiary value due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.138B of the Customs Act. In this town seizure case, the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden of proving foreign origin or smuggling of the gold. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with s.138B was not contingent upon whether cross-examination was sought, but was a mandatory procedural requirement. Conversely, the appellant produced legitimate purchase invoices which were confirmed by sellers. Without substantive evidence of smuggling, no penalty could be imposed under s.112(b). Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that confiscation of gold and penalties imposed on the appellant were unjustified. The tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied primarily on statements that lacked evidentiary value due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.138B of the Customs Act. In this town seizure case, the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden of proving foreign origin or smuggling of the gold. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with s.138B was not contingent upon whether cross-examination was sought, but was a mandatory procedural requirement. Conversely, the appellant produced legitimate purchase invoices which were confirmed by sellers. Without substantive evidence of smuggling, no penalty could be imposed under s.112(b). Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
