Supervisory permanent establishment requires project-wise duration and qualifying construction nexus; offshore supplies and salary reimbursements rema...
Transfer-pricing comparability permits fresh objections and filters where software service comparables are functionally unsuitable for arm's-length pr...
Territorial rendering requirement excludes China-based management and consultancy services from fees for technical services under the India-China DTAA...
CESTAT adjudicated a customs export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
