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...
HC held that samples of Distillate Fuel Oil were drawn in violation of mandatory Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were collected in the absence of the owner/importer and without any alternative statutory or administrative authority permitting such procedure. The Department's inconsistent treatment of samples drawn at different locations was rejected as untenable. As the initial sampling was de hors Section 144, the subsequent laboratory test report could not lawfully form the basis for seizure. The seizure memo issued by DRI authorities was declared illegal and quashed. Consequently, the petition filed by the importing company was allowed.
HC held that samples of Distillate Fuel Oil were drawn in violation of mandatory Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were collected in the absence of the owner/importer and without any alternative statutory or administrative authority permitting such procedure. The Department's inconsistent treatment of samples drawn at different locations was rejected as untenable. As the initial sampling was de hors Section 144, the subsequent laboratory test report could not lawfully form the basis for seizure. The seizure memo issued by DRI authorities was declared illegal and quashed. Consequently, the petition filed by the importing company was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
