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 appellate proceedings concerning attempted export of prohibited peacock feathers involved allegations against an appellant for misrepresenting goods as 'carpets'. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in evidence collection, specifically improper reliance on statements under Section 108 of Customs Act without proper witness examination and cross-examination. The commissioner's order imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 was deemed unsustainable due to insufficient direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged export conspiracy. Mere presence at the premises with the principal accused was deemed inadequate to establish culpability. The tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively setting aside the penalty order and exonerating the appellant from liability under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT appellate proceedings concerning attempted export of prohibited peacock feathers involved allegations against an appellant for misrepresenting goods as 'carpets'. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in evidence collection, specifically improper reliance on statements under Section 108 of Customs Act without proper witness examination and cross-examination. The commissioner's order imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 was deemed unsustainable due to insufficient direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged export conspiracy. Mere presence at the premises with the principal accused was deemed inadequate to establish culpability. The tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively setting aside the penalty order and exonerating the appellant from liability under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
