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 appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
CESTAT allowed appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
