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 allowed the appeal challenging anti-dumping duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant and its director. The tribunal held that extended limitation period under section 28(4) of the Customs Act was incorrectly invoked, as mere incorrect valuation without evidence of deliberate suppression does not constitute suppression of material facts. The appellant had made bonafide declarations in Bills of Entry, which were examined and cleared by customs officers. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., CESTAT ruled that bonafide belief in correct duty discharge, even if ultimately wrong, cannot be deemed malafide. Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA against the director were set aside as valuation was bonafide without bad motive. The impugned order was completely set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging anti-dumping duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant and its director. The tribunal held that extended limitation period under section 28(4) of the Customs Act was incorrectly invoked, as mere incorrect valuation without evidence of deliberate suppression does not constitute suppression of material facts. The appellant had made bonafide declarations in Bills of Entry, which were examined and cleared by customs officers. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., CESTAT ruled that bonafide belief in correct duty discharge, even if ultimately wrong, cannot be deemed malafide. Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA against the director were set aside as valuation was bonafide without bad motive. The impugned order was completely set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
