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 partially allowed the appellant's customs appeal regarding eligibility for exemption under Notifications 11/1997, 23/1998, and 20/1999. The Tribunal held that appellant's defibrillators, primarily for external use, did not qualify for exemption restricted to internal use devices, following Supreme Court precedent. The appellant committed mis-declaration and suppression by claiming internal use despite knowing exemption denial, justifying duty demand, interest, and penalty for 1997-99 imports under extended limitation period. However, 2002 import demands were time-barred under normal limitation. Penalty under Section 112(a) against the General Manager was set aside due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in suppression.
CESTAT partially allowed the appellant's customs appeal regarding eligibility for exemption under Notifications 11/1997, 23/1998, and 20/1999. The Tribunal held that appellant's defibrillators, primarily for external use, did not qualify for exemption restricted to internal use devices, following Supreme Court precedent. The appellant committed mis-declaration and suppression by claiming internal use despite knowing exemption denial, justifying duty demand, interest, and penalty for 1997-99 imports under extended limitation period. However, 2002 import demands were time-barred under normal limitation. Penalty under Section 112(a) against the General Manager was set aside due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in suppression.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
