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 appellant's appeal regarding under-valuation of imported silk fabrics from China. Revenue rejected transaction value under Rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules, relying on contemporaneous imports by other importers and director's statement under Section 108 Customs Act. CESTAT held Revenue failed to discharge burden of proving under-valuation with cogent evidence. Department could not establish identical goods comparison as documents lacked specifications regarding grammage, grade, and quality of weave. Director's statement inadmissible without following Section 138B procedure. Transaction value rejection unjustified; re-determination under Rule 5 unnecessary. Redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. Commissioner's order dated 06.02.2009 set aside.
CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding under-valuation of imported silk fabrics from China. Revenue rejected transaction value under Rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules, relying on contemporaneous imports by other importers and director's statement under Section 108 Customs Act. CESTAT held Revenue failed to discharge burden of proving under-valuation with cogent evidence. Department could not establish identical goods comparison as documents lacked specifications regarding grammage, grade, and quality of weave. Director's statement inadmissible without following Section 138B procedure. Transaction value rejection unjustified; re-determination under Rule 5 unnecessary. Redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. Commissioner's order dated 06.02.2009 set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
