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...
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the CESTAT order and upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), denying preferential tariff relief. The court held that entitlement under N/N.46/2011-Cus. requires a valid certificate of origin conforming to AIFTA Rules and that the importer bears the evidentiary burden. The AIFTA certificates were held unreliable: shipping records showed departure on 31.03.2014 while the invoices were dated 23.05.2014, and the certificate misidentified the third-party supplier, demonstrating material discrepancies that undermined authenticity. Tallying of quantities and vessel particulars could not substitute for a bona fide certificate; exemption therefore could not be granted.
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the CESTAT order and upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), denying preferential tariff relief. The court held that entitlement under N/N.46/2011-Cus. requires a valid certificate of origin conforming to AIFTA Rules and that the importer bears the evidentiary burden. The AIFTA certificates were held unreliable: shipping records showed departure on 31.03.2014 while the invoices were dated 23.05.2014, and the certificate misidentified the third-party supplier, demonstrating material discrepancies that undermined authenticity. Tallying of quantities and vessel particulars could not substitute for a bona fide certificate; exemption therefore could not be granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.