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 set aside the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as against Appellant No. 1, holding that the record contains no direct evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling and that investigative witnesses material to the Panchanama were either not present throughout the operation or were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal also found breach of principles of natural justice with respect to Appellant No. 2 due to failure to procure Panch witnesses for cross-examination and insufficient evidence of possession of the seized gold. Consequently, the penalty on Appellant No. 2 was reduced from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 and the impugned order as to penalties was otherwise modified and the appeal disposed.
CESTAT set aside the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as against Appellant No. 1, holding that the record contains no direct evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling and that investigative witnesses material to the Panchanama were either not present throughout the operation or were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal also found breach of principles of natural justice with respect to Appellant No. 2 due to failure to procure Panch witnesses for cross-examination and insufficient evidence of possession of the seized gold. Consequently, the penalty on Appellant No. 2 was reduced from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 and the impugned order as to penalties was otherwise modified and the appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
