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...
High Court considered valuation of seized goods based on market survey and held that once customs issued a show cause notice using market value, the burden shifted to the appellant to prove incorrect valuation; appellant's general denial and failure to substantiate valuation challenged the decision. Statements recorded under the Customs Act (s.108) were treated as admissible and not vitiated by absence of cross-examination, since the right to cross-examine is not absolute and no prejudice was shown. The court concluded the appeal raised no question of law required for maintainability under the Act and dismissed the appeal.
High Court considered valuation of seized goods based on market survey and held that once customs issued a show cause notice using market value, the burden shifted to the appellant to prove incorrect valuation; appellant's general denial and failure to substantiate valuation challenged the decision. Statements recorded under the Customs Act (s.108) were treated as admissible and not vitiated by absence of cross-examination, since the right to cross-examine is not absolute and no prejudice was shown. The court concluded the appeal raised no question of law required for maintainability under the Act and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.