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 under s.112(a) of the Customs Act on the chartered engineer-appellant. The Tribunal found procedural infirmities: the show-cause notice initially omitted the appellant and only included him by corrigendum; statements relied on under s.108 were inadmissible given non-compliance with s.138B procedural requirements; and the appellant's role was limited to certifying installation, not the subsequent use of the imported vehicles. Further, because confiscation and penalties previously imposed on the importer and its directors were vacated, imposition of penalty on the engineer could not be sustained. The impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under s.112(a) of the Customs Act on the chartered engineer-appellant. The Tribunal found procedural infirmities: the show-cause notice initially omitted the appellant and only included him by corrigendum; statements relied on under s.108 were inadmissible given non-compliance with s.138B procedural requirements; and the appellant's role was limited to certifying installation, not the subsequent use of the imported vehicles. Further, because confiscation and penalties previously imposed on the importer and its directors were vacated, imposition of penalty on the engineer could not be sustained. The impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
