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 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was levied against appellants, Customs House Agents (CHAs), for not exercising due diligence. The allegation was that appellants facilitated fraudulent export and availed undue drawback by not verifying exporters' antecedents. However, it was held that the act of not being diligent in verifying exporters' antecedents attracts provisions of CBLR, 2018, not penalty u/s 117. The Tribunal had previously ruled that penalty for not verifying exporter's KYC cannot be sustained. Consequently, the penalty imposed on appellants u/s 117 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was levied against appellants, Customs House Agents (CHAs), for not exercising due diligence. The allegation was that appellants facilitated fraudulent export and availed undue drawback by not verifying exporters' antecedents. However, it was held that the act of not being diligent in verifying exporters' antecedents attracts provisions of CBLR, 2018, not penalty u/s 117. The Tribunal had previously ruled that penalty for not verifying exporter's KYC cannot be sustained. Consequently, the penalty imposed on appellants u/s 117 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.