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" ?
Non-compliance with earlier remand directions, coupled with reliance on investigation statements without the procedure required for their proof, rendered the penalty order unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had ignored specific directions to produce examination records, contemporaneous export values and, if necessary, allow examination or cross-examination of officers. It further held that statements recorded during investigation could not be used to prove their contents because the mandatory admissibility procedure had not been followed. The Tribunal also ruled that penalty under Section 114(iii) could not be imposed for exports made in 1999-2000, as that penal provision was not then in force, and set aside the penalties.
Non-compliance with earlier remand directions, coupled with reliance on investigation statements without the procedure required for their proof, rendered the penalty order unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had ignored specific directions to produce examination records, contemporaneous export values and, if necessary, allow examination or cross-examination of officers. It further held that statements recorded during investigation could not be used to prove their contents because the mandatory admissibility procedure had not been followed. The Tribunal also ruled that penalty under Section 114(iii) could not be imposed for exports made in 1999-2000, as that penal provision was not then in force, and set aside the penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.