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 held that the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting depreciation on capital goods only until the date of payment of duty, instead of until the date of de-bonding/cessation of 100% EOU status, was unlawful. The Tribunal interpreted the notifications as permitting calculation of customs duty on depreciated value with reference to exchange rate at bill of entry and duty rate prevailing when the undertaking ceases to be an EOU, and that the specific provision allowing depreciation until payment applies only where clearance is authorized under Development Commissioner permission in normal debonding. The Commissioner (Appeals) order is set aside; the appeal is allowed and remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for recalculation of duty accordingly.
CESTAT held that the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting depreciation on capital goods only until the date of payment of duty, instead of until the date of de-bonding/cessation of 100% EOU status, was unlawful. The Tribunal interpreted the notifications as permitting calculation of customs duty on depreciated value with reference to exchange rate at bill of entry and duty rate prevailing when the undertaking ceases to be an EOU, and that the specific provision allowing depreciation until payment applies only where clearance is authorized under Development Commissioner permission in normal debonding. The Commissioner (Appeals) order is set aside; the appeal is allowed and remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for recalculation of duty accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.