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 customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
CESTAT held that the customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
