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" ?
Customs broker misclassified goods (safety matches) to obtain higher MEIS benefit for exporter. Charges were levied u/s 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. Key points: Classification of goods was a long-standing practice at the Custom House; classification being complex, it is a matter of belief, not amounting to misdeclaration as per Supreme Court precedent. No evidence of customs broker colluding with exporter or illegally benefiting. Acts cannot be considered willful, deliberate, or dishonest to evade duty as per Madras High Court ruling. For lapses by customs brokers, matter should be examined under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. No grounds for penalty were established; hence, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Customs broker misclassified goods (safety matches) to obtain higher MEIS benefit for exporter. Charges were levied u/s 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. Key points: Classification of goods was a long-standing practice at the Custom House; classification being complex, it is a matter of belief, not amounting to misdeclaration as per Supreme Court precedent. No evidence of customs broker colluding with exporter or illegally benefiting. Acts cannot be considered willful, deliberate, or dishonest to evade duty as per Madras High Court ruling. For lapses by customs brokers, matter should be examined under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. No grounds for penalty were established; hence, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.