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 Revenue failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the intercepted Indian currency was intended for illegal export, noting the interception occurred about 3 km from the Bangladesh border and that the benefit of doubt accrues to the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of absolute confiscation and the imposition of penalty under s.114 of the Customs Act, 1962, and directed the release of Rs.1,500,000 deposited with a bank, which had been seized from an intercepted person but purportedly belonging to the appellant. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order quashed.
CESTAT held that the Revenue failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the intercepted Indian currency was intended for illegal export, noting the interception occurred about 3 km from the Bangladesh border and that the benefit of doubt accrues to the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of absolute confiscation and the imposition of penalty under s.114 of the Customs Act, 1962, and directed the release of Rs.1,500,000 deposited with a bank, which had been seized from an intercepted person but purportedly belonging to the appellant. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
