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 the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST because the requisite conditions and original documentary proof (consignment note/invoices/bills/challans, agreement with the overseas commission agent, and shipping bill disclosure) were not produced; mere filing of EXP-1/EXP-2 was insufficient. The Tribunal found the demands for the periods Oct 2009-Mar 2010 and Apr 2010-Sep 2010 to be within the limitation period and therefore upheld the demands under Section 73. The demand for interest was sustained as compensatory. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT held that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST because the requisite conditions and original documentary proof (consignment note/invoices/bills/challans, agreement with the overseas commission agent, and shipping bill disclosure) were not produced; mere filing of EXP-1/EXP-2 was insufficient. The Tribunal found the demands for the periods Oct 2009-Mar 2010 and Apr 2010-Sep 2010 to be within the limitation period and therefore upheld the demands under Section 73. The demand for interest was sustained as compensatory. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
