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" ?
Goods imported and warehoused in Kandla Special Economic Zone were cleared into Domestic Tariff Area. The department enhanced the value based on NIDB data, leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. However, the NIDB data was from 2017, while clearance occurred in 2018, rendering its application unjustified. No evidence of undervaluation, such as invoice manipulation or consideration flow-back, was presented. The declared invoice value was accepted in the absence of contrary material. As no mala fide intention was established, imposition of fine and penalty was incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Goods imported and warehoused in Kandla Special Economic Zone were cleared into Domestic Tariff Area. The department enhanced the value based on NIDB data, leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. However, the NIDB data was from 2017, while clearance occurred in 2018, rendering its application unjustified. No evidence of undervaluation, such as invoice manipulation or consideration flow-back, was presented. The declared invoice value was accepted in the absence of contrary material. As no mala fide intention was established, imposition of fine and penalty was incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.