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...
The dominant issue was whether mobile phones seized for invoice mismatch and regulatory non-compliance were liable to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority correctly treated 3,998 phones as smuggled since the invoices relied on by the importer did not match the documents filed with the Bill of Entry, warranting confiscation; 2,886 phones were properly allowed redemption on fine, and 1,012 phones were rightly subjected to absolute confiscation because import without valid IMEI numbers is prohibited. Separately, absence of MRP/RSP stickers breached FTP requirements and section 4A compliance, justifying confiscation of the 2,886 phones. Penalties imposed on the importing entity and its responsible persons were upheld as proportionate, and the appeals were dismissed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether mobile phones seized for invoice mismatch and regulatory non-compliance were liable to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority correctly treated 3,998 phones as smuggled since the invoices relied on by the importer did not match the documents filed with the Bill of Entry, warranting confiscation; 2,886 phones were properly allowed redemption on fine, and 1,012 phones were rightly subjected to absolute confiscation because import without valid IMEI numbers is prohibited. Separately, absence of MRP/RSP stickers breached FTP requirements and section 4A compliance, justifying confiscation of the 2,886 phones. Penalties imposed on the importing entity and its responsible persons were upheld as proportionate, and the appeals were dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
