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 appellant's customs broker (CB) license revocation, penalty imposition, and security deposit forfeiture were challenged for alleged violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The key points are: The CB declared proper goods description and value in the Bills of Entry (B/Es) based on documents provided by the importer. The CB satisfactorily responded to customs queries, and goods were assessed for duty. No evidence showed the CB knowingly misdeclared goods description or value. Laxmi Narayan Mishra fabricated invoices with incorrect descriptions, not the CB. The CB accepted documents indirectly from the importer through a logistics provider, violating Regulation 10(a) by not exercising due diligence. However, other regulations were not violated. Penalty imposition for Regulation 10(a) violation is justified, but license revocation and security deposit forfeiture are not warranted based on the facts. The appeal against the Principal Commissioner's order was allowed by the CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
The appellant's customs broker (CB) license revocation, penalty imposition, and security deposit forfeiture were challenged for alleged violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The key points are: The CB declared proper goods description and value in the Bills of Entry (B/Es) based on documents provided by the importer. The CB satisfactorily responded to customs queries, and goods were assessed for duty. No evidence showed the CB knowingly misdeclared goods description or value. Laxmi Narayan Mishra fabricated invoices with incorrect descriptions, not the CB. The CB accepted documents indirectly from the importer through a logistics provider, violating Regulation 10(a) by not exercising due diligence. However, other regulations were not violated. Penalty imposition for Regulation 10(a) violation is justified, but license revocation and security deposit forfeiture are not warranted based on the facts. The appeal against the Principal Commissioner's order was allowed by the CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
