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...
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
