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 dismissed the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, holding it non-maintainable due to availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128 and serious suppression of material facts. The petitioner, a power of attorney holder/agent, had concealed prior proceedings and the related order concerning the connected importers, despite a clear duty of full disclosure by both petitioner and counsel. The HC noted that the same Order-in-Original had already not been entertained in a previous writ by the importer and found no ground to exercise writ jurisdiction, particularly given disputed factual issues. The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000, payable to the Delhi HC Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, holding it non-maintainable due to availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128 and serious suppression of material facts. The petitioner, a power of attorney holder/agent, had concealed prior proceedings and the related order concerning the connected importers, despite a clear duty of full disclosure by both petitioner and counsel. The HC noted that the same Order-in-Original had already not been entertained in a previous writ by the importer and found no ground to exercise writ jurisdiction, particularly given disputed factual issues. The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000, payable to the Delhi HC Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
