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 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.05.2021 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under s.108, Customs Act, was inadmissible where the procedure under s.138B was not complied with; consequently that statement could not serve as the sole basis for rejecting declared assessable value and for re-determination under r.5, 2007 Valuation Rules. Applying principles analogous to s.14 and s.9D, Central Excise Act, the Tribunal confirmed that admissibility requires prior examination of the maker as witness and an adjudicative determination on relevance followed by an opportunity for cross-examination. The Commissioner (Appeals) order based solely on the inadmissible statement was therefore unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.05.2021 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under s.108, Customs Act, was inadmissible where the procedure under s.138B was not complied with; consequently that statement could not serve as the sole basis for rejecting declared assessable value and for re-determination under r.5, 2007 Valuation Rules. Applying principles analogous to s.14 and s.9D, Central Excise Act, the Tribunal confirmed that admissibility requires prior examination of the maker as witness and an adjudicative determination on relevance followed by an opportunity for cross-examination. The Commissioner (Appeals) order based solely on the inadmissible statement was therefore unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
