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 complex customs valuation dispute involving imported machinery under EPCG scheme. The tribunal found manipulation of documents, suppression of correct payment details, and willful misstatement by the importer. The key findings include: (1) extended period under Section 28(4) was justified due to deliberate concealment, (2) EPCG license benefits could be challenged despite non-cancellation by DGFT, and (3) the importer failed to discharge burden of proof regarding declared value. The tribunal ordered duty recalculation, allowed partial notification benefits, set aside goods confiscation, and maintained penalties against the company and its employee, emphasizing the need to deter statutory violations.
CESTAT adjudicated a complex customs valuation dispute involving imported machinery under EPCG scheme. The tribunal found manipulation of documents, suppression of correct payment details, and willful misstatement by the importer. The key findings include: (1) extended period under Section 28(4) was justified due to deliberate concealment, (2) EPCG license benefits could be challenged despite non-cancellation by DGFT, and (3) the importer failed to discharge burden of proof regarding declared value. The tribunal ordered duty recalculation, allowed partial notification benefits, set aside goods confiscation, and maintained penalties against the company and its employee, emphasizing the need to deter statutory violations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
