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 held that customs duty under section 14 of the Customs Act can be determined based on transaction value reflected in invoices retrieved from importer's email account, even when different invoice was filed with Bill of Entry. The Larger Bench rejected the Division Bench's earlier ruling that emails found in importer's private capacity cannot substantiate mis-declaration cases. Court reasoned that Customs Act and 2007 Valuation Rules permit proper officer to consider email invoices for verification under section 46, and after rejecting declared transaction value, re-determination can proceed through rules 4-9. Since identical/similar goods' transaction values can be considered, email invoices for same consignment hold greater relevance. Appeals remanded to Division Bench for merit-based adjudication.
CESTAT held that customs duty under section 14 of the Customs Act can be determined based on transaction value reflected in invoices retrieved from importer's email account, even when different invoice was filed with Bill of Entry. The Larger Bench rejected the Division Bench's earlier ruling that emails found in importer's private capacity cannot substantiate mis-declaration cases. Court reasoned that Customs Act and 2007 Valuation Rules permit proper officer to consider email invoices for verification under section 46, and after rejecting declared transaction value, re-determination can proceed through rules 4-9. Since identical/similar goods' transaction values can be considered, email invoices for same consignment hold greater relevance. Appeals remanded to Division Bench for merit-based adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.