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 allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 imposed under s.112(a)(ii) on the appellant (formerly M/s Bentley Motors). The Tribunal held that the foundational order confiscating goods under s.111(m) as against other persons had already been quashed by final order dated 18.11.2024, which alone vitiated the basis for penal liability of the appellant. Further, the Tribunal found no evidence of mala fides or of any act or omission by the appellant that rendered the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(m); supplementary invoices and account adjustments were disclosed during the investigation. Accordingly, the s.112 penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 imposed under s.112(a)(ii) on the appellant (formerly M/s Bentley Motors). The Tribunal held that the foundational order confiscating goods under s.111(m) as against other persons had already been quashed by final order dated 18.11.2024, which alone vitiated the basis for penal liability of the appellant. Further, the Tribunal found no evidence of mala fides or of any act or omission by the appellant that rendered the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(m); supplementary invoices and account adjustments were disclosed during the investigation. Accordingly, the s.112 penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
