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 determined no penalties were imposable under FEMA, 1999 for two export transactions involving short-realization of export proceeds. For the first transaction through M.V. Vincentia, the appellant demonstrated bona fide efforts to mitigate losses and obtain RBI approval, with no mandatory requirement for penalty. In the second transaction via MV Riva, excess payment was already received, and respondents failed to substantiate claims of negligence. Consequently, penalties against the corporate entity and individual appellants were set aside, recognizing procedural compliance and absence of intentional contravention.
AT determined no penalties were imposable under FEMA, 1999 for two export transactions involving short-realization of export proceeds. For the first transaction through M.V. Vincentia, the appellant demonstrated bona fide efforts to mitigate losses and obtain RBI approval, with no mandatory requirement for penalty. In the second transaction via MV Riva, excess payment was already received, and respondents failed to substantiate claims of negligence. Consequently, penalties against the corporate entity and individual appellants were set aside, recognizing procedural compliance and absence of intentional contravention.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.