Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Under Notification No. 84/97-Cus, belated production of the Project Implementing Authority certificate, including the countersignature requirement, was treated as procedural rather than substantive. The Tribunal applied earlier precedent to hold that exemption could not be denied solely because the certificate was not filed in the exact prescribed form before clearance, where the project otherwise satisfied the notification. On that basis, the customs duty demand, interest, confiscation and penalty against the importer were set aside. The separate penalty on the bank was also unsustainable because the alleged omission was only procedural and no confiscation was upheld.
Under Notification No. 84/97-Cus, belated production of the Project Implementing Authority certificate, including the countersignature requirement, was treated as procedural rather than substantive. The Tribunal applied earlier precedent to hold that exemption could not be denied solely because the certificate was not filed in the exact prescribed form before clearance, where the project otherwise satisfied the notification. On that basis, the customs duty demand, interest, confiscation and penalty against the importer were set aside. The separate penalty on the bank was also unsustainable because the alleged omission was only procedural and no confiscation was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
