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 Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended) and the enhanced duty notification could lawfully operate to demand a higher customs duty from the relevant date. Relying on binding precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and 25(2A), and noting consistent views declaring it illegal and unconstitutional, the court held that the enhanced duty demand premised on Section 25(4) could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Bill of Entry was quashed and the authorities were directed to refund the excess duty with interest from the date of deposit until refund within three months. - HC
The dominant issue was whether Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended) and the enhanced duty notification could lawfully operate to demand a higher customs duty from the relevant date. Relying on binding precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and 25(2A), and noting consistent views declaring it illegal and unconstitutional, the court held that the enhanced duty demand premised on Section 25(4) could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Bill of Entry was quashed and the authorities were directed to refund the excess duty with interest from the date of deposit until refund within three months. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
