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 dismissed the appellant's challenge and upheld classification of the imported product under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 rather than 3003, concluding the goods are general health/food preparations not medicaments. The Tribunal held that where an earlier CESTAT judgment is under appeal to the SC it cannot be relied upon as binding precedent for the same lis, and that admission of an appeal does not equate to an automatic stay. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding therapeutic use, whereas revenue met its evidentiary burden; accordingly the appeal was rejected and the impugned assessment sustained.
CESTAT dismissed the appellant's challenge and upheld classification of the imported product under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 rather than 3003, concluding the goods are general health/food preparations not medicaments. The Tribunal held that where an earlier CESTAT judgment is under appeal to the SC it cannot be relied upon as binding precedent for the same lis, and that admission of an appeal does not equate to an automatic stay. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding therapeutic use, whereas revenue met its evidentiary burden; accordingly the appeal was rejected and the impugned assessment sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.