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" ?
Seizure - Burden of proof - ‘reasonable belief’ - Onus for proving the goods to be not smuggled - Seizure outside the ‘customs area’ - The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof does indeed shift to the person from whose possession the goods were seized under section 123, emphasizing the necessity of proving that the goods were not smuggled. The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation under section 111 was justified based on the evidence presented, including the frequency of travel by the Main Accused and the nature of the goods being consistent with smuggling activities. The evidence from electronic devices and a diary supported the assumption of smuggling.
Seizure - Burden of proof - ‘reasonable belief’ - Onus for proving the goods to be not smuggled - Seizure outside the ‘customs area’ - The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof does indeed shift to the person from whose possession the goods were seized under section 123, emphasizing the necessity of proving that the goods were not smuggled. The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation under section 111 was justified based on the evidence presented, including the frequency of travel by the Main Accused and the nature of the goods being consistent with smuggling activities. The evidence from electronic devices and a diary supported the assumption of smuggling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
