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...
Where confiscated foreign-origin cigarette packets proposed for e-auction did not comply with mandatory packaging and labelling requirements under COTPA 2003 and the 2014 Amendment Rules, the department could not lawfully release them for home consumption and was required to destroy them; consequently, the bidder's failure to deposit the balance bid amount could not justify forfeiture of the initial deposit. The departmental contention that the 29.03.2017 Circular was inapplicable because the auction was earlier was rejected, as the governing statutory compliance conditions controlled release. Orders rejecting refund were set aside and refund of the deposited amount was directed with 6% interest from deposit to payment. - CESTAT
Where confiscated foreign-origin cigarette packets proposed for e-auction did not comply with mandatory packaging and labelling requirements under COTPA 2003 and the 2014 Amendment Rules, the department could not lawfully release them for home consumption and was required to destroy them; consequently, the bidder's failure to deposit the balance bid amount could not justify forfeiture of the initial deposit. The departmental contention that the 29.03.2017 Circular was inapplicable because the auction was earlier was rejected, as the governing statutory compliance conditions controlled release. Orders rejecting refund were set aside and refund of the deposited amount was directed with 6% interest from deposit to payment. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
