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.114(i) was premised on alleged failure by the customs broker to verify KYC and antecedents of the exporter, facilitating fraudulent exports. Since identical allegations had already been adjudicated in parallel broker-licensing proceedings and were found not proved, re-imposition of penalty on the same factual foundation was held unsustainable and was set aside. Penalty under s.114AA required proof that the broker submitted forged/fabricated documents or knowingly used such documents; the record showed no authority or practical scope for the broker to examine container contents, and the investigation yielded no concrete evidence of connivance, benefit, or specific role beyond conjecture, so this penalty was also set aside. Appeal allowed - CESTAT
Penalty under s.114(i) was premised on alleged failure by the customs broker to verify KYC and antecedents of the exporter, facilitating fraudulent exports. Since identical allegations had already been adjudicated in parallel broker-licensing proceedings and were found not proved, re-imposition of penalty on the same factual foundation was held unsustainable and was set aside. Penalty under s.114AA required proof that the broker submitted forged/fabricated documents or knowingly used such documents; the record showed no authority or practical scope for the broker to examine container contents, and the investigation yielded no concrete evidence of connivance, benefit, or specific role beyond conjecture, so this penalty was also set aside. Appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.