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 allowed the appeal of the importing company and its Managing Director, holding that extended limitation under the Customs Act, 1962 was not invocable as there was no suppression, wilful mis-declaration, or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that Bills of Entry were filed based on manufacturer's invoices/catalogues, the goods were examined by the proper officer, and duty was assessed and paid accordingly. Consequently, the demand of differential customs duty based on the extended period was set aside, though duty, if any, remains payable only for the normal limitation period. CESTAT further held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(m), thereby setting aside confiscation and redemption fine, and also vacated all penalties imposed on the company and its Managing Director.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importing company and its Managing Director, holding that extended limitation under the Customs Act, 1962 was not invocable as there was no suppression, wilful mis-declaration, or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that Bills of Entry were filed based on manufacturer's invoices/catalogues, the goods were examined by the proper officer, and duty was assessed and paid accordingly. Consequently, the demand of differential customs duty based on the extended period was set aside, though duty, if any, remains payable only for the normal limitation period. CESTAT further held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(m), thereby setting aside confiscation and redemption fine, and also vacated all penalties imposed on the company and its Managing Director.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
