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 directed the release of the seized consignment upon the petitioner furnishing a bond equivalent to the full value of the goods under seizure. The court found the respondent-authority erred in demanding a bank guarantee of Rs. 12,51,005/- in addition to the Rs. 1 crore already deposited by the petitioner towards differential anti-dumping duty. The liability for anti-dumping duty was determined to be Rs. 27,48,995/-, and the excess deposit was acknowledged. The respondent-authority was ordered to provisionally release the goods subject to the final adjudication after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC directed the release of the seized consignment upon the petitioner furnishing a bond equivalent to the full value of the goods under seizure. The court found the respondent-authority erred in demanding a bank guarantee of Rs. 12,51,005/- in addition to the Rs. 1 crore already deposited by the petitioner towards differential anti-dumping duty. The liability for anti-dumping duty was determined to be Rs. 27,48,995/-, and the excess deposit was acknowledged. The respondent-authority was ordered to provisionally release the goods subject to the final adjudication after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
