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 examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
