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 no export duty is leviable on the 14,000 MT claimed by the appellant SEZ unit, as SEZ law governs and SEZ authorities may, if warranted, proceed under SEZ Act/Rules; consequently the Department's export-duty demand quashed. The import-duty demand was unsustainable for lack of intentional evasion, but confiscation/redemption fine liability stood in part: a redemption fine reduced to Rs.1,500,000 (already realized) was upheld; no duty is payable on 1,026.7 MT. Confiscation of 7,000 MT and of vehicles was held untenable. Penal demands under s.114A were rejected; penalties under ss.72/73A(3) for procedural breaches were sustained but reduced to Rs.250,000 each. Impugned Commissioner's order modified; appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT held that no export duty is leviable on the 14,000 MT claimed by the appellant SEZ unit, as SEZ law governs and SEZ authorities may, if warranted, proceed under SEZ Act/Rules; consequently the Department's export-duty demand quashed. The import-duty demand was unsustainable for lack of intentional evasion, but confiscation/redemption fine liability stood in part: a redemption fine reduced to Rs.1,500,000 (already realized) was upheld; no duty is payable on 1,026.7 MT. Confiscation of 7,000 MT and of vehicles was held untenable. Penal demands under s.114A were rejected; penalties under ss.72/73A(3) for procedural breaches were sustained but reduced to Rs.250,000 each. Impugned Commissioner's order modified; appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
