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 order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
