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 the absolute confiscation of cigarettes with penalty u/s 105 of Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that while lack of compliance with Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 could infer goods as illicitly imported, only designated authorities can enforce municipal laws for goods intended for domestic sale. Seized cigarettes of foreign origin not compliant with the Act justified confiscation u/s 110 of Customs Act, 1962. The onus u/s 123 of Customs Act, 1962 was applied to hand rolling tobacco, rolling paper, and filters for non-compliance with the Act. As there was no evidence of smuggling, confiscation u/s 111 and penalty u/s 112 were set aside, except for the confiscation of 10,200 foreign-origin cigarettes valued at ₹1,53,000, reducing the penalty to ₹50,000.
The case involved the absolute confiscation of cigarettes with penalty u/s 105 of Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that while lack of compliance with Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 could infer goods as illicitly imported, only designated authorities can enforce municipal laws for goods intended for domestic sale. Seized cigarettes of foreign origin not compliant with the Act justified confiscation u/s 110 of Customs Act, 1962. The onus u/s 123 of Customs Act, 1962 was applied to hand rolling tobacco, rolling paper, and filters for non-compliance with the Act. As there was no evidence of smuggling, confiscation u/s 111 and penalty u/s 112 were set aside, except for the confiscation of 10,200 foreign-origin cigarettes valued at ₹1,53,000, reducing the penalty to ₹50,000.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
