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" ?
Customs penalty on company officers turned on whether acts or omissions rendered goods liable to confiscation and whether the officers acted personally or only in their official capacity. The Tribunal's reduction of the Chairman and Managing Director's penalty was upheld because liability under Sections 112 and 114 remained intact and moderation of quantum was a factual exercise, not a substantial question of law absent perversity. Penalty on the other officers was also sustained as having been correctly set aside, since they were found to be employees acting on company instructions with no personal dealings in the goods; that factual finding justified non-imposition of personal penalty. Appeals were dismissed.
Customs penalty on company officers turned on whether acts or omissions rendered goods liable to confiscation and whether the officers acted personally or only in their official capacity. The Tribunal's reduction of the Chairman and Managing Director's penalty was upheld because liability under Sections 112 and 114 remained intact and moderation of quantum was a factual exercise, not a substantial question of law absent perversity. Penalty on the other officers was also sustained as having been correctly set aside, since they were found to be employees acting on company instructions with no personal dealings in the goods; that factual finding justified non-imposition of personal penalty. Appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.