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 held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
CESTAT held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
