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...
The AT dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Special Director's refusal to confiscate Rs.89,70,000, concluding that no contravention of s.3(d) was made out because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action and never materialized; attempts to invoke s.3(c)/s.3(d) and penalty under s.13(2) did not justify confiscation. The tribunal declined to interfere with penalties of Rs.25,00,000 imposed on each appellant. Noting an unexplained 20-year retention, the AT directed the respondent to apply the withheld Rs.89,70,000 against the penalties and refund any surplus to the appellants. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The AT dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Special Director's refusal to confiscate Rs.89,70,000, concluding that no contravention of s.3(d) was made out because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action and never materialized; attempts to invoke s.3(c)/s.3(d) and penalty under s.13(2) did not justify confiscation. The tribunal declined to interfere with penalties of Rs.25,00,000 imposed on each appellant. Noting an unexplained 20-year retention, the AT directed the respondent to apply the withheld Rs.89,70,000 against the penalties and refund any surplus to the appellants. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
