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 appellant's appeal against customs penalty under sections 112(a) and 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal held that customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to question export performance after Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) issuance by DGFT for three advance licenses. For remaining licenses, matter remanded to Commissioner for verification with DGFT regarding clubbing facility and EODC status. Appellant admitted wrongly claiming drawback of Rs.15,68,943 and accepted liability to reverse same. Tribunal found customs investigation premature where export obligations fulfilled per DGFT records and value addition requirements met under Foreign Trade Policy. Demand for three licenses with valid EODC set aside, except drawback reversal. Commissioner directed to verify clubbing eligibility and quantify outstanding obligations before imposing duty liability.
CESTAT partially allowed appellant's appeal against customs penalty under sections 112(a) and 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal held that customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to question export performance after Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) issuance by DGFT for three advance licenses. For remaining licenses, matter remanded to Commissioner for verification with DGFT regarding clubbing facility and EODC status. Appellant admitted wrongly claiming drawback of Rs.15,68,943 and accepted liability to reverse same. Tribunal found customs investigation premature where export obligations fulfilled per DGFT records and value addition requirements met under Foreign Trade Policy. Demand for three licenses with valid EODC set aside, except drawback reversal. Commissioner directed to verify clubbing eligibility and quantify outstanding obligations before imposing duty liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.