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 Customs Broker (CB) was alleged to have violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018, for failing to verify the antecedents and actual beneficiary in an import consignment containing mis-declared and prohibited goods, including e-cigarettes. The CB had obtained the KYC documents and authorization from the importer, contacted the importer, verified their IEC and KYC details, and provided assistance to the investigating authorities. The Tribunal held that the CB fulfilled its obligations under Regulation 10(n) by verifying the KYC of the client (importer) and acted with due diligence. It is improper to impose a burden on the CB to verify the actual beneficiary beyond the obligations of verifying the client's KYC. The CB's belief that the coordinator was a representative of the importer was bonafide. The allegation of violating Regulation 10(n) was unfounded, and the penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed on the CB was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
The Customs Broker (CB) was alleged to have violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018, for failing to verify the antecedents and actual beneficiary in an import consignment containing mis-declared and prohibited goods, including e-cigarettes. The CB had obtained the KYC documents and authorization from the importer, contacted the importer, verified their IEC and KYC details, and provided assistance to the investigating authorities. The Tribunal held that the CB fulfilled its obligations under Regulation 10(n) by verifying the KYC of the client (importer) and acted with due diligence. It is improper to impose a burden on the CB to verify the actual beneficiary beyond the obligations of verifying the client's KYC. The CB's belief that the coordinator was a representative of the importer was bonafide. The allegation of violating Regulation 10(n) was unfounded, and the penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed on the CB was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
