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 importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
