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, setting aside the ex parte Order-in-Original on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that non-supply of relied-upon seized documents, despite repeated written requests, denied the assessee effective opportunity to contest the show cause notice. It further found that the demand of Rs. 16,65,594/- was based solely on private rough estimate books without verification of manufacture, transport, receipt of goods by alleged customers, or flow of consideration. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalties on the assessee were quashed. Penalties imposed on the Director and Supervisor under Rule 26 were also set aside for lack of evidence of their involvement.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the ex parte Order-in-Original on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that non-supply of relied-upon seized documents, despite repeated written requests, denied the assessee effective opportunity to contest the show cause notice. It further found that the demand of Rs. 16,65,594/- was based solely on private rough estimate books without verification of manufacture, transport, receipt of goods by alleged customers, or flow of consideration. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalties on the assessee were quashed. Penalties imposed on the Director and Supervisor under Rule 26 were also set aside for lack of evidence of their involvement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
