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...
HC dismisses writ petition challenging seizure of gold bars exceeding permissible import limit. The court upheld lower authorities' decision denying option to pay fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. Distinguishing prior precedents, the court noted the instant case involved gold bars significantly over legal limit, unlike previous cases with jewelry within permissible quantum. The court found no merit in petitioners' arguments and rejected interference under Article 226, thereby confirming the original confiscation order and declining alternative fine payment option.
HC dismisses writ petition challenging seizure of gold bars exceeding permissible import limit. The court upheld lower authorities' decision denying option to pay fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. Distinguishing prior precedents, the court noted the instant case involved gold bars significantly over legal limit, unlike previous cases with jewelry within permissible quantum. The court found no merit in petitioners' arguments and rejected interference under Article 226, thereby confirming the original confiscation order and declining alternative fine payment option.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.