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 appellants imported goods by utilizing DEPB scrips which were later found to be fraudulently obtained, though the appellants were unaware of this fact. The key issues were the validity of such DEPB scrips for duty exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court has held that exemption benefit cannot be availed on forged/fake DEPB licenses/scrips, even if purchased from the open market. Therefore, the demand for duty was upheld as per the impugned order. However, since the appellants were unaware of the fraud, the penalty was set aside. The appeal was allowed in part by the CESTAT.
The appellants imported goods by utilizing DEPB scrips which were later found to be fraudulently obtained, though the appellants were unaware of this fact. The key issues were the validity of such DEPB scrips for duty exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court has held that exemption benefit cannot be availed on forged/fake DEPB licenses/scrips, even if purchased from the open market. Therefore, the demand for duty was upheld as per the impugned order. However, since the appellants were unaware of the fraud, the penalty was set aside. The appeal was allowed in part by the CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.