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...
Imported polyester knitted cut pile fabric, though classifiable under CTH 6001, was held to fall under the "others" sub-heading because the test report showed it was neither long pile nor looped pile fabric; being of man-made fibres, it was correctly classified under CTI 6001 92 00, and the consequential duty demand was sustained. Misdeclaration of quantity and nature of goods, including non-declaration of some goods, rendered them liable to confiscation under s.111(l) and (m) of the Customs Act, and confiscation was upheld. As the misdeclaration attracted confiscability, penalty under s.112 was also upheld, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. - CESTAT
Imported polyester knitted cut pile fabric, though classifiable under CTH 6001, was held to fall under the "others" sub-heading because the test report showed it was neither long pile nor looped pile fabric; being of man-made fibres, it was correctly classified under CTI 6001 92 00, and the consequential duty demand was sustained. Misdeclaration of quantity and nature of goods, including non-declaration of some goods, rendered them liable to confiscation under s.111(l) and (m) of the Customs Act, and confiscation was upheld. As the misdeclaration attracted confiscability, penalty under s.112 was also upheld, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.