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...
The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as "fish protein" (2012-2016) then "decalcified fish scale" (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under notification provisions applicable to advance authorization schemes. Without licensing authority objection or authorization cancellation, the Department cannot deny notification benefits. Appeal allowed.
The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as "fish protein" (2012-2016) then "decalcified fish scale" (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under notification provisions applicable to advance authorization schemes. Without licensing authority objection or authorization cancellation, the Department cannot deny notification benefits. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
