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" ?
Denial of benefit of Value Based Advance Licenses (VABAL) to the appellants-transferees and the recovery of customs duty, along with the imposition of penalties. The key points are: The DGFT authorities took action on certain licenses, but there was no indication of cancellation by them for the three VABAL licenses in question. The impugned order directing duty recovery has no legal basis and is contrary to CBEC instructions. The Tribunal held that since the VABAL licenses were not obtained through fraud, the ratio of the Supreme Court case involving forged documents does not apply. The DGFT authorities issued amendments for the three licenses, indicating they were not found to involve forgery. Precedents establish that if licenses were valid at import time, subsequent cancellation on fraud grounds does not impact the transferee. The benefit of notification cannot be denied to the transferee on the ground of breach of conditions. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands, interest, and penalties is unsustainable, and the appeal is allowed.
Denial of benefit of Value Based Advance Licenses (VABAL) to the appellants-transferees and the recovery of customs duty, along with the imposition of penalties. The key points are: The DGFT authorities took action on certain licenses, but there was no indication of cancellation by them for the three VABAL licenses in question. The impugned order directing duty recovery has no legal basis and is contrary to CBEC instructions. The Tribunal held that since the VABAL licenses were not obtained through fraud, the ratio of the Supreme Court case involving forged documents does not apply. The DGFT authorities issued amendments for the three licenses, indicating they were not found to involve forgery. Precedents establish that if licenses were valid at import time, subsequent cancellation on fraud grounds does not impact the transferee. The benefit of notification cannot be denied to the transferee on the ground of breach of conditions. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands, interest, and penalties is unsustainable, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.