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 CESTAT set aside the confirmed demand of differential customs duty and interest based on four invoices allegedly retrieved from a mobile phone, as the procedure under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 was not followed and the evidence was inadmissible. The adjudicating authority's revaluation of 165 Bills of Entry over five years without proper comparison or verification of goods lacked material basis and violated valuation rules. The appellant's contemporaneous import data was accepted, and the arbitrary duty demand was quashed. Penalties under Sections 112(b), 114A, and 114AA imposed on both appellants were also set aside, including the penalty on appellant 2 under Section 112(b), as no offense was established against him. All demands and penalties were annulled, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT set aside the confirmed demand of differential customs duty and interest based on four invoices allegedly retrieved from a mobile phone, as the procedure under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 was not followed and the evidence was inadmissible. The adjudicating authority's revaluation of 165 Bills of Entry over five years without proper comparison or verification of goods lacked material basis and violated valuation rules. The appellant's contemporaneous import data was accepted, and the arbitrary duty demand was quashed. Penalties under Sections 112(b), 114A, and 114AA imposed on both appellants were also set aside, including the penalty on appellant 2 under Section 112(b), as no offense was established against him. All demands and penalties were annulled, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
