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 AT allowed appeals of three appellants and set aside the impugned order, holding that the Department failed to prove contravention of Section 3(a) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The Tribunal found no admissible evidence of foreign remittance; reliance on police/visa verification and disputed correspondence did not establish actual outward remittance. The Respondent failed to obtain corroborative materials (e.g., bank statements) to discharge the evidentiary burden, and the allegation could not stand on presumption or hypothesis. Claims regarding EURO funds in a foreign trust were unproven. Consequently, the penalty and enhancement sought by the Department were quashed and the appeals of the three appellants were allowed.
The AT allowed appeals of three appellants and set aside the impugned order, holding that the Department failed to prove contravention of Section 3(a) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The Tribunal found no admissible evidence of foreign remittance; reliance on police/visa verification and disputed correspondence did not establish actual outward remittance. The Respondent failed to obtain corroborative materials (e.g., bank statements) to discharge the evidentiary burden, and the allegation could not stand on presumption or hypothesis. Claims regarding EURO funds in a foreign trust were unproven. Consequently, the penalty and enhancement sought by the Department were quashed and the appeals of the three appellants were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
