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 Revenue failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement under s.28(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, and did not establish suppression or mens rea "with intent to evade duty" sufficient to invoke the extended period of limitation. The SCN issued beyond the normal assessment period and relied solely on alleged mis-declaration without the requisite statutory conditions to trigger s.28. Consequently the extended limitation could not be invoked, the demand premised on the larger limitation period was set aside, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeals filed by the Appellant/Importer were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
CESTAT held that Revenue failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement under s.28(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, and did not establish suppression or mens rea "with intent to evade duty" sufficient to invoke the extended period of limitation. The SCN issued beyond the normal assessment period and relied solely on alleged mis-declaration without the requisite statutory conditions to trigger s.28. Consequently the extended limitation could not be invoked, the demand premised on the larger limitation period was set aside, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeals filed by the Appellant/Importer were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
