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 and set aside the penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act. It held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be treated as relevant evidence since the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the finding that the appellant was the owner of the seized 12 gold bars was unsustainable, section 123 could not be invoked, and the gold bars were not liable to confiscation under s. 111. The Tribunal further held that the confiscation of seized currency and gold jewellery/ornaments was based on presumptions and was unsustainable, and criticisms regarding absence of e-way bills were legally untenable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act. It held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be treated as relevant evidence since the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the finding that the appellant was the owner of the seized 12 gold bars was unsustainable, section 123 could not be invoked, and the gold bars were not liable to confiscation under s. 111. The Tribunal further held that the confiscation of seized currency and gold jewellery/ornaments was based on presumptions and was unsustainable, and criticisms regarding absence of e-way bills were legally untenable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.