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 dismissed all four appeals and upheld imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, finding mens rea on the part of the appellants. The appellate tribunal held that custodial personnel admitted receipt, computerized entry and instructions not to release the seized containers, demonstrating knowledge that seized goods could not be removed without proper officer permission under Section 45(2)(b). The Tribunal further sustained liability under Section 111(j) for rendering imported goods liable to confiscation through connivance in manifest amendment and delivery to a second consignee, permitting re-confiscation for the same policy violation. The role of the appellants was equated to that of the second consignee and the quantum of penalties was held appropriate.
CESTAT dismissed all four appeals and upheld imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, finding mens rea on the part of the appellants. The appellate tribunal held that custodial personnel admitted receipt, computerized entry and instructions not to release the seized containers, demonstrating knowledge that seized goods could not be removed without proper officer permission under Section 45(2)(b). The Tribunal further sustained liability under Section 111(j) for rendering imported goods liable to confiscation through connivance in manifest amendment and delivery to a second consignee, permitting re-confiscation for the same policy violation. The role of the appellants was equated to that of the second consignee and the quantum of penalties was held appropriate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
