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 upheld clandestine removal charges against appellant based on computerized records and documents retrieved during surprise inspection, rejecting defense arguments regarding lack of cash recovery or excess consumption evidence. The tribunal found Director's self-inculpating statement regarding cash payments for clandestinely cleared goods admissible, noting absence of formal retraction despite appellant's general contestation. Evidentiary value of recovered chits indicating pending payments was maintained despite no statement from employee possessing them, as Director initially admitted their significance. Under Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts require no proof, making deemed retraction argument irrational. CESTAT confirmed Directors' liability under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 for contumacious conduct and mens rea, but reduced penalty to Rs. 50,000 each considering fifteen-year case duration. Appeal disposed with penalty modification only.
CESTAT upheld clandestine removal charges against appellant based on computerized records and documents retrieved during surprise inspection, rejecting defense arguments regarding lack of cash recovery or excess consumption evidence. The tribunal found Director's self-inculpating statement regarding cash payments for clandestinely cleared goods admissible, noting absence of formal retraction despite appellant's general contestation. Evidentiary value of recovered chits indicating pending payments was maintained despite no statement from employee possessing them, as Director initially admitted their significance. Under Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts require no proof, making deemed retraction argument irrational. CESTAT confirmed Directors' liability under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 for contumacious conduct and mens rea, but reduced penalty to Rs. 50,000 each considering fifteen-year case duration. Appeal disposed with penalty modification only.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
