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 in part, holding that the appellants remained liable for and their deposited amounts were properly appropriated towards customs duty on imported gold under the nominated-agency exemption scheme, resulting in cancellation of the bonds and discharge of duty liability. However, the Tribunal set aside imposition of penalty under s.112(a) of the Act and the orders of confiscation and redemption fine, finding no collusion or responsibility of the appellants for fraudulent diversion by the exporter. Consequently, extended limitation was not invoked against the appellants and no further action survives against them in respect of the appropriated duty.
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the appellants remained liable for and their deposited amounts were properly appropriated towards customs duty on imported gold under the nominated-agency exemption scheme, resulting in cancellation of the bonds and discharge of duty liability. However, the Tribunal set aside imposition of penalty under s.112(a) of the Act and the orders of confiscation and redemption fine, finding no collusion or responsibility of the appellants for fraudulent diversion by the exporter. Consequently, extended limitation was not invoked against the appellants and no further action survives against them in respect of the appropriated duty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.