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...
AT adjudicated a foreign exchange contravention case involving unauthorized receipt of funds from outside India. The tribunal found violations under Sections 3(c) and 3(d) of the 1999 Act based on documentary evidence and corroborated statements. The original penalties of Rs. 9 crore and Rs. 1 crore were substantially reduced to Rs. 2.75 crore and Rs. 25 lakhs respectively, considering the case's age. The tribunal directed respondent to adjust Rs. 1 crore from the confiscated amount of Rs. 1,10,95,000, with excess funds to be returned to the appellant. The appellant's prior deposit of Rs. 90 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 1.10 crore were also considered in the final disposition.
AT adjudicated a foreign exchange contravention case involving unauthorized receipt of funds from outside India. The tribunal found violations under Sections 3(c) and 3(d) of the 1999 Act based on documentary evidence and corroborated statements. The original penalties of Rs. 9 crore and Rs. 1 crore were substantially reduced to Rs. 2.75 crore and Rs. 25 lakhs respectively, considering the case's age. The tribunal directed respondent to adjust Rs. 1 crore from the confiscated amount of Rs. 1,10,95,000, with excess funds to be returned to the appellant. The appellant's prior deposit of Rs. 90 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 1.10 crore were also considered in the final disposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
