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 a Rs.3,00,000 penalty imposed under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the appellant was neither owner nor party concerned with carriage or concealment of the foreign-origin garments, which were not covered by s.123 nor notified under s.11. The goods had been subjected to statutory physical examination, cleared on examination, and lawful possession and sale were supported by invoices, GST returns and Bills of Entry; ownership had transferred on sale. The Tribunal found no basis for imposition of s.112(b) penalty on the appellant and quashed the levy; appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside a Rs.3,00,000 penalty imposed under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the appellant was neither owner nor party concerned with carriage or concealment of the foreign-origin garments, which were not covered by s.123 nor notified under s.11. The goods had been subjected to statutory physical examination, cleared on examination, and lawful possession and sale were supported by invoices, GST returns and Bills of Entry; ownership had transferred on sale. The Tribunal found no basis for imposition of s.112(b) penalty on the appellant and quashed the levy; appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
