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 an earlier notification for import of gold dore bars when the DGFT import licence stated that imports were "subject to" a later notification prescribing duty. The Tribunal held that the licence condition only subjected the import to the later notification and did not bar availing any other applicable exemption; hence, the adjudicating authority's "if and only if" reading was untenable. Relying on the principle that customs authorities cannot deny exemption by questioning an uncancelled DGFT licence, it held duty recovery could arise only if the licence was cancelled by DGFT. Consequently, the duty demand, penalty, and redemption fine were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under an earlier notification for import of gold dore bars when the DGFT import licence stated that imports were "subject to" a later notification prescribing duty. The Tribunal held that the licence condition only subjected the import to the later notification and did not bar availing any other applicable exemption; hence, the adjudicating authority's "if and only if" reading was untenable. Relying on the principle that customs authorities cannot deny exemption by questioning an uncancelled DGFT licence, it held duty recovery could arise only if the licence was cancelled by DGFT. Consequently, the duty demand, penalty, and redemption fine were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.