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 penalty imposed on the appellant, holding that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act are not admissible as relevant evidence under section 138B unless the maker is first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority, after forming an opinion on admissibility, admits the statement and affords the accused the opportunity of cross-examination. Because the impugned penalty was predicated on such inadmissible statements and the procedural safeguards were not observed, the penalty levied on the appellant (including that attributed to the managing director) could not be sustained and was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, holding that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act are not admissible as relevant evidence under section 138B unless the maker is first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority, after forming an opinion on admissibility, admits the statement and affords the accused the opportunity of cross-examination. Because the impugned penalty was predicated on such inadmissible statements and the procedural safeguards were not observed, the penalty levied on the appellant (including that attributed to the managing director) could not be sustained and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
