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" ?
The High Court addressed the dismissal of a restoration application for appeal u/s 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, focusing on compliance with mandatory pre-deposit. The appellant had deposited Rs. 15 lakhs in 2017, showing good faith. The Court noted the appellant's compliance with Sec. 129 A (1) of the Act and pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal should have allowed the appellant to pursue the appeal after addressing the pending Writ Petition. Dismissing the appeal in limine was deemed unreasonable. The Tribunal should have given the appellant a chance to challenge the imposed penalty of Rs. 2 crores on its merits. The appeal was ultimately allowed.
The High Court addressed the dismissal of a restoration application for appeal u/s 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, focusing on compliance with mandatory pre-deposit. The appellant had deposited Rs. 15 lakhs in 2017, showing good faith. The Court noted the appellant's compliance with Sec. 129 A (1) of the Act and pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal should have allowed the appellant to pursue the appeal after addressing the pending Writ Petition. Dismissing the appeal in limine was deemed unreasonable. The Tribunal should have given the appellant a chance to challenge the imposed penalty of Rs. 2 crores on its merits. The appeal was ultimately allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
