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 while Customs authorities are competent to investigate and issue show cause notices concerning eligibility of exemption under N/N. 18/2015-Cus., the final determination of eligibility of Advance Authorisation benefits lies with DGFT. Since the core issue pertained to fulfilment of export obligation and permissible use of imported goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, CESTAT ruled that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority was premature in the absence of a prior, final decision by DGFT on the same issue. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-decide the show cause notice after DGFT concludes its adjudication. The appeal was disposed of by remand.
CESTAT held that while Customs authorities are competent to investigate and issue show cause notices concerning eligibility of exemption under N/N. 18/2015-Cus., the final determination of eligibility of Advance Authorisation benefits lies with DGFT. Since the core issue pertained to fulfilment of export obligation and permissible use of imported goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, CESTAT ruled that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority was premature in the absence of a prior, final decision by DGFT on the same issue. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-decide the show cause notice after DGFT concludes its adjudication. The appeal was disposed of by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
