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 an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
