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 appeals of the anonymized appellant-CHA and G-Card holder and set aside penalties imposed under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted the principal importer had settled under ss.127B/127C and found no investigation or material implicating the foreign supplier to substantiate connivance. On facts, Revenue failed to prove the CHA's or G-Card holder's involvement in under-valuation or mis-declaration: the CHA acted as freight forwarder per shipping documents and the G-Card holder declared goods as provided, lacked presence at loading, knowledge of transaction particulars, and received no unlawful consideration. The Tribunal observed that regulatory action under CBLR-2018, not penal provisions, would have been appropriate for CHA.
CESTAT allowed the appeals of the anonymized appellant-CHA and G-Card holder and set aside penalties imposed under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted the principal importer had settled under ss.127B/127C and found no investigation or material implicating the foreign supplier to substantiate connivance. On facts, Revenue failed to prove the CHA's or G-Card holder's involvement in under-valuation or mis-declaration: the CHA acted as freight forwarder per shipping documents and the G-Card holder declared goods as provided, lacked presence at loading, knowledge of transaction particulars, and received no unlawful consideration. The Tribunal observed that regulatory action under CBLR-2018, not penal provisions, would have been appropriate for CHA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
