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" ?
Export of Goods - Mis-declaration of Mud additive chemicals for oil well - Confiscation - The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision to confiscate the goods was based on evidence that did not adhere to proper procedural requirements. Specifically, the statements relied upon were not subjected to the process prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act, rendering them irrelevant. Additionally, the denial of cross-examination regarding the test report further weakened the case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation. Since the confiscation of goods was deemed invalid due to procedural lapses, the penalties imposed on the appellants were also overturned.
Export of Goods - Mis-declaration of Mud additive chemicals for oil well - Confiscation - The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision to confiscate the goods was based on evidence that did not adhere to proper procedural requirements. Specifically, the statements relied upon were not subjected to the process prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act, rendering them irrelevant. Additionally, the denial of cross-examination regarding the test report further weakened the case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation. Since the confiscation of goods was deemed invalid due to procedural lapses, the penalties imposed on the appellants were also overturned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.