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 set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under s.112(b)(i) & (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to seized contraband cigarettes and other foreign-origin goods. It held that s.123 was inapplicable as the appellant had not claimed ownership of the goods, and an earlier statement under s.107, recorded while in custody, could not be treated as voluntary. The Tribunal ruled that an inculpatory statement of a co-accused, without independent corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain penal liability. Investigation failed to verify the godown owner, establish that the appellant had hired or possessed the godown, or conduct any independent inquiry. Finding the case based solely on retracted custodial statements, CESTAT allowed the appeal and annulled the penalty.
CESTAT set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under s.112(b)(i) & (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to seized contraband cigarettes and other foreign-origin goods. It held that s.123 was inapplicable as the appellant had not claimed ownership of the goods, and an earlier statement under s.107, recorded while in custody, could not be treated as voluntary. The Tribunal ruled that an inculpatory statement of a co-accused, without independent corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain penal liability. Investigation failed to verify the godown owner, establish that the appellant had hired or possessed the godown, or conduct any independent inquiry. Finding the case based solely on retracted custodial statements, CESTAT allowed the appeal and annulled the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
