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 impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
