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 HC dismisses the Revenue's appeals and affirms the CESTAT's order. The CESTAT's factual findings that the impugned skin-barrier micropore surgical tapes are not within Notification No.21/2002-Cus are sustained, including reliance on additional material placed before the Tribunal. The Court holds the extended limitation under s.28(4) is not attracted absent proved collusion, willful misstatement or suppression, hence the show-cause notice could not cover the extended period; corresponding duty and penalty under s.114A are therefore not leviable. The Court declines to opine on a separate CESTAT bench decision and rejects the Revenue's challenge to the self-assessment finding for want of pleaded perversity. Appeals dismissed.
The HC dismisses the Revenue's appeals and affirms the CESTAT's order. The CESTAT's factual findings that the impugned skin-barrier micropore surgical tapes are not within Notification No.21/2002-Cus are sustained, including reliance on additional material placed before the Tribunal. The Court holds the extended limitation under s.28(4) is not attracted absent proved collusion, willful misstatement or suppression, hence the show-cause notice could not cover the extended period; corresponding duty and penalty under s.114A are therefore not leviable. The Court declines to opine on a separate CESTAT bench decision and rejects the Revenue's challenge to the self-assessment finding for want of pleaded perversity. Appeals dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
