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...
AT upheld the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 40 FERA, despite subsequent retraction, holding that retraction alone does not establish involuntariness and noting sufficient independent and cogent corroborative evidence, including recovered documents, seized cash and corroborating statements. AT affirmed findings of contravention of Ss. 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(f)(i) and 14 FERA, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the merits of the adjudication. However, considering the appellant's age and prior deposit of part of the penalty, AT exercised discretion to reduce the penalty to Rs. 9,00,000/-, directing adjustment of amounts already deposited/released. Appeal was thus partly allowed, limited to quantum of penalty.
AT upheld the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 40 FERA, despite subsequent retraction, holding that retraction alone does not establish involuntariness and noting sufficient independent and cogent corroborative evidence, including recovered documents, seized cash and corroborating statements. AT affirmed findings of contravention of Ss. 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(f)(i) and 14 FERA, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the merits of the adjudication. However, considering the appellant's age and prior deposit of part of the penalty, AT exercised discretion to reduce the penalty to Rs. 9,00,000/-, directing adjustment of amounts already deposited/released. Appeal was thus partly allowed, limited to quantum of penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.