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 case involved a dispute over the valuation of power units supplied by one party to another, leading to a demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant undervalued components supplied, resulting in undervaluation of the power units. The appellant's argument that they were not liable to pay duty under a different rule was rejected as they had chosen a specific duty payment procedure. The recalculation of interest was found to be time-barred under Section 11A. The penalty imposed under Section 11AC was deemed unsustainable as duty determination under Section 11A was lacking. The decision was in line with the Supreme Court's ruling that penalty under Section 11AC applies only after a duty determination under Section 11A. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant by the CESTAT.
The case involved a dispute over the valuation of power units supplied by one party to another, leading to a demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant undervalued components supplied, resulting in undervaluation of the power units. The appellant's argument that they were not liable to pay duty under a different rule was rejected as they had chosen a specific duty payment procedure. The recalculation of interest was found to be time-barred under Section 11A. The penalty imposed under Section 11AC was deemed unsustainable as duty determination under Section 11A was lacking. The decision was in line with the Supreme Court's ruling that penalty under Section 11AC applies only after a duty determination under Section 11A. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant by the CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
