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" ?
Clandestine removal of excisable goods - Penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on Managing Director. Appellant challenged Order upholding penalty without specifying applicable clause of Rule 26. Held: Rule 26 penalty can be levied on any person concerned in removing excisable goods liable for confiscation, without confiscation proposal or order. Appellant's statement admitted involvement. Adjudicating authority not required to specify sub-rule as sub-rule (2) inapplicable. Appellant put on notice regarding nature of contravention. Co-operative principle not violated. Concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities. No substantial question of law arises. Appeals dismissed.
Clandestine removal of excisable goods - Penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on Managing Director. Appellant challenged Order upholding penalty without specifying applicable clause of Rule 26. Held: Rule 26 penalty can be levied on any person concerned in removing excisable goods liable for confiscation, without confiscation proposal or order. Appellant's statement admitted involvement. Adjudicating authority not required to specify sub-rule as sub-rule (2) inapplicable. Appellant put on notice regarding nature of contravention. Co-operative principle not violated. Concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities. No substantial question of law arises. Appeals dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
