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" ?
Revocation of a customs broker's license and imposition of penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The key points are: The finding that the customs broker failed to obtain authorization from each client was held as not proved. The requirement of being in contact with a specific person was confused with obtaining authorization from the client company. The charge of failing to advise the client to comply with statutory provisions was incorrectly invoked, as there was no evidence that the broker did not advise the client properly. The charge of furnishing incorrect information to the client was also not proved. The allegation of attempting to influence the examination report by customs officers was not substantiated, as there was no evidence of threats, inducements, or favors offered by the broker. The charge of failing to verify the correctness of particulars was erroneously upheld based on flimsy presumptions. Consequently, the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty were set aside by the appellate tribunal (CESTAT) due to lack of evidence and erroneous findings.
Revocation of a customs broker's license and imposition of penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The key points are: The finding that the customs broker failed to obtain authorization from each client was held as not proved. The requirement of being in contact with a specific person was confused with obtaining authorization from the client company. The charge of failing to advise the client to comply with statutory provisions was incorrectly invoked, as there was no evidence that the broker did not advise the client properly. The charge of furnishing incorrect information to the client was also not proved. The allegation of attempting to influence the examination report by customs officers was not substantiated, as there was no evidence of threats, inducements, or favors offered by the broker. The charge of failing to verify the correctness of particulars was erroneously upheld based on flimsy presumptions. Consequently, the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty were set aside by the appellate tribunal (CESTAT) due to lack of evidence and erroneous findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
