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 CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside.
The CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
