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 the appeals, sustaining invocation of the extended period of limitation and upholding denial of relief where the appellant relied on manipulated/forged Transport/Registration Authorizations (TRAs). The Tribunal held that the appellant's plea of ignorance of manipulation was untenable because statutory procedure required procurement of TRAs from the port of registration and verification of their authenticity; failure to apply to the issuing port and to verify documents constituted lack of due diligence. Consequently, the forgery of TRAs could not absolve the appellant, and relief was refused with appeals dismissed.
CESTAT dismissed the appeals, sustaining invocation of the extended period of limitation and upholding denial of relief where the appellant relied on manipulated/forged Transport/Registration Authorizations (TRAs). The Tribunal held that the appellant's plea of ignorance of manipulation was untenable because statutory procedure required procurement of TRAs from the port of registration and verification of their authenticity; failure to apply to the issuing port and to verify documents constituted lack of due diligence. Consequently, the forgery of TRAs could not absolve the appellant, and relief was refused with appeals dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
