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, finding a breach of natural justice because the adjudicatory authority failed to afford the appellant an adequate opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 138B retain relevance in departmental adjudication as well as criminal proceedings, but their use without permitting cross-examination vitiates the proceedings. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication, directing the authority to permit effective cross-examination of witnesses, reassess the evidentiary weight of Section 138B statements in light of such testing, and pass a fresh reasoned order consistent with principles of fair hearing.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, finding a breach of natural justice because the adjudicatory authority failed to afford the appellant an adequate opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 138B retain relevance in departmental adjudication as well as criminal proceedings, but their use without permitting cross-examination vitiates the proceedings. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication, directing the authority to permit effective cross-examination of witnesses, reassess the evidentiary weight of Section 138B statements in light of such testing, and pass a fresh reasoned order consistent with principles of fair hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.