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 demands and penalties against the Appellants, holding that the charge of clandestine manufacture/removal was not proved. The Tribunal found allegations rested on assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence: no buyer statements, no proved transportation, and no proper investigation linking third-party recoveries to the Appellants. Statements recorded during investigation lacked the Section 9D procedural safeguards and were therefore inadmissible; electronic print-outs were inadmissible for want of the requisite Section 36B certification; payment of duty during investigation did not constitute an admission. Stock shortfall based on eye-estimation was unreliable. Consequential penalties were quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demands and penalties against the Appellants, holding that the charge of clandestine manufacture/removal was not proved. The Tribunal found allegations rested on assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence: no buyer statements, no proved transportation, and no proper investigation linking third-party recoveries to the Appellants. Statements recorded during investigation lacked the Section 9D procedural safeguards and were therefore inadmissible; electronic print-outs were inadmissible for want of the requisite Section 36B certification; payment of duty during investigation did not constitute an admission. Stock shortfall based on eye-estimation was unreliable. Consequential penalties were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
