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 officers of DGCEI appointed under s.4(1) before 06.07.2011 were validly clothed with assessment and s.28(1) powers pursuant to the Validation Act and subsequent statutory amendments; the issuance of a show cause notice by those officers was legally competent and suffers no infirmity. Separately, the appeal abated under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 following the death of all partners and dissolution of the partnership firm; while the absence of procedural provisions for recovery from legal representatives does not extinguish substantive liability, the appellate remedy terminated by operation of law and required judicial cognizance to record abatement.
CESTAT held that officers of DGCEI appointed under s.4(1) before 06.07.2011 were validly clothed with assessment and s.28(1) powers pursuant to the Validation Act and subsequent statutory amendments; the issuance of a show cause notice by those officers was legally competent and suffers no infirmity. Separately, the appeal abated under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 following the death of all partners and dissolution of the partnership firm; while the absence of procedural provisions for recovery from legal representatives does not extinguish substantive liability, the appellate remedy terminated by operation of law and required judicial cognizance to record abatement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
