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 upheld the State Tribunal's factual finding that the movement of goods from the appellant's Indapur unit (Maharashtra) to its Haridwar outlet (Uttarakhand) was occasioned by purchase orders issued by the buyer, constituting an inter-State sale under section 3(a) rather than an intra-enterprise branch transfer under section 6A. The Tribunal's conclusion relied on purchase orders, invoices, stock-transfer challans, lorry receipts and witness statements showing pre-existing contracts of sale and buyer-specific specifications; these findings were not disturbed. However, CESTAT set aside the penalty under section 29(3) MVAT Act as the show-cause procedure was deficient. Appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT upheld the State Tribunal's factual finding that the movement of goods from the appellant's Indapur unit (Maharashtra) to its Haridwar outlet (Uttarakhand) was occasioned by purchase orders issued by the buyer, constituting an inter-State sale under section 3(a) rather than an intra-enterprise branch transfer under section 6A. The Tribunal's conclusion relied on purchase orders, invoices, stock-transfer challans, lorry receipts and witness statements showing pre-existing contracts of sale and buyer-specific specifications; these findings were not disturbed. However, CESTAT set aside the penalty under section 29(3) MVAT Act as the show-cause procedure was deficient. Appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
