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 adjudicated a case involving alleged gold smuggling from China via Bhutan. After comprehensive review, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to substantiate smuggling charges against the appellant. The statements of three intercepted persons were deemed inadequate to establish direct involvement in illicit gold transportation. Critically, no corroborative evidence was presented by revenue authorities to substantiate the smuggling allegations. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and allowed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof in customs contraventions.
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving alleged gold smuggling from China via Bhutan. After comprehensive review, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to substantiate smuggling charges against the appellant. The statements of three intercepted persons were deemed inadequate to establish direct involvement in illicit gold transportation. Critically, no corroborative evidence was presented by revenue authorities to substantiate the smuggling allegations. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and allowed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof in customs contraventions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.