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 affirmed that the imported de-humidifiers are classifiable under CTI 8509 80 00, not CTI 8479, because Chapter Note 1(f) to Ch.84 excludes goods falling within Ch.85 and Chapter Note 4 to Ch.85 confines the scope of CTH 8509. A demand issued under s.28 was validly invoked, including the extended limitation period, since the importer altered classification without notifying authorities and critical facts were concealed. The goods were held liable to confiscation under s.111(m). The penalty under s.114A on the importer was upheld as conditions for extended limitation and penalty coincide. The penalty proposed against the customs broker was set aside for lack of cogent evidence; the remainder of the adjudicatory order is sustained.
CESTAT affirmed that the imported de-humidifiers are classifiable under CTI 8509 80 00, not CTI 8479, because Chapter Note 1(f) to Ch.84 excludes goods falling within Ch.85 and Chapter Note 4 to Ch.85 confines the scope of CTH 8509. A demand issued under s.28 was validly invoked, including the extended limitation period, since the importer altered classification without notifying authorities and critical facts were concealed. The goods were held liable to confiscation under s.111(m). The penalty under s.114A on the importer was upheld as conditions for extended limitation and penalty coincide. The penalty proposed against the customs broker was set aside for lack of cogent evidence; the remainder of the adjudicatory order is sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.