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" ?
Penalty u/s 114(i) on CHA - Export of "Carbon Black" - Obligation of CHA for the unauthorized loading of the container without LEO (Let Export Order) - The Tribunal emphasized that prior knowledge of the offending goods and mens rea is required for invoking section 114(iii). The case law cited by the department did not support their position in the absence of mens rea. - The Tribunal concluded that there was no act of omission or commission on the part of the Appellant that rendered the goods liable for confiscation under section 113(g). The penalty imposed was not justified.
Penalty u/s 114(i) on CHA - Export of "Carbon Black" - Obligation of CHA for the unauthorized loading of the container without LEO (Let Export Order) - The Tribunal emphasized that prior knowledge of the offending goods and mens rea is required for invoking section 114(iii). The case law cited by the department did not support their position in the absence of mens rea. - The Tribunal concluded that there was no act of omission or commission on the part of the Appellant that rendered the goods liable for confiscation under section 113(g). The penalty imposed was not justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.