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...
Dispute concerns entitlement to customs duty exemption under Notification No.84/97-Cus where the department alleged wrongful availing based on forged Project Implementation Authorisation Certificate (PIAC), while the claimant contends absence of an assigned Line Ministry prevented lawful countersignature. The tribunal considered applicability of natural justice and the doctrine of prejudice, finding the appellant did not establish prejudice from prior opportunities but noting seriousness of fraud allegations. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication: the original authority must allow filing of written submissions and afford a personal hearing before deciding entitlement to the exemption.
Dispute concerns entitlement to customs duty exemption under Notification No.84/97-Cus where the department alleged wrongful availing based on forged Project Implementation Authorisation Certificate (PIAC), while the claimant contends absence of an assigned Line Ministry prevented lawful countersignature. The tribunal considered applicability of natural justice and the doctrine of prejudice, finding the appellant did not establish prejudice from prior opportunities but noting seriousness of fraud allegations. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication: the original authority must allow filing of written submissions and afford a personal hearing before deciding entitlement to the exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
