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...
HC held that the Customs Department unlawfully seized and disposed of passengers' gold jewellery exceeding 400 grams, failed to account for proceeds of disposal, and issued a deficient refund order addressing only appraised value without recording disposal or redemption permissions by the OIO. The court found the Department's refusal to pay amounts due to the petitioners, despite the OIO attaining finality, amounted to deprivation of property without legal authority. The matter was treated as a grave procedural and statutory breach warranting further adjudication and was directed to be listed for hearing on 22 September 2025 for appropriate remedial orders.
HC held that the Customs Department unlawfully seized and disposed of passengers' gold jewellery exceeding 400 grams, failed to account for proceeds of disposal, and issued a deficient refund order addressing only appraised value without recording disposal or redemption permissions by the OIO. The court found the Department's refusal to pay amounts due to the petitioners, despite the OIO attaining finality, amounted to deprivation of property without legal authority. The matter was treated as a grave procedural and statutory breach warranting further adjudication and was directed to be listed for hearing on 22 September 2025 for appropriate remedial orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.