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...
Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act was examined on the allegation that the appellant abetted undervaluation and duty evasion by lack of due care in maintaining the importer's accounts. The SCN and the impugned order did not explain how any act or omission by the appellant amounted to abetment, and reliance on the appellant's statement was untenable as its admissibility under s.138B was not established; in any event, the statement only described courier-led clearance on supplier invoices and did not support a finding of abetment. With no evidence of intentional conduct, instigation, or conspiracy, the finding reduced at most to negligence, which cannot sustain s.112(a) penalty. Penalty was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act was examined on the allegation that the appellant abetted undervaluation and duty evasion by lack of due care in maintaining the importer's accounts. The SCN and the impugned order did not explain how any act or omission by the appellant amounted to abetment, and reliance on the appellant's statement was untenable as its admissibility under s.138B was not established; in any event, the statement only described courier-led clearance on supplier invoices and did not support a finding of abetment. With no evidence of intentional conduct, instigation, or conspiracy, the finding reduced at most to negligence, which cannot sustain s.112(a) penalty. Penalty was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
