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 show cause notice issued on 17.10.2017 was governed by the unamended provisions of section 28(9) of the Customs Act. The unamended section provided time limits of six months or one year for determining duty/interest, where possible. The Commissioner recorded that despite issuing the notice, the appellant delayed filing a reply and sought documents, filing an interim reply only on 07.04.2021. Covid restrictions delayed proceedings till February 2021. After providing documents in March 2021 and a personal hearing on 03.06.2021, the matter was adjudicated on 29.06.2021. The Commissioner gave cogent reasons for inability to adjudicate within the unamended time limits. The appellant argued adjudication should have been within stipulated time despite no reply, but this aspect was examined. As no submissions were made on merits, only the limitation issue was considered. No infirmity was found in the Commissioner's order, and the appeals were dismissed.
The show cause notice issued on 17.10.2017 was governed by the unamended provisions of section 28(9) of the Customs Act. The unamended section provided time limits of six months or one year for determining duty/interest, where possible. The Commissioner recorded that despite issuing the notice, the appellant delayed filing a reply and sought documents, filing an interim reply only on 07.04.2021. Covid restrictions delayed proceedings till February 2021. After providing documents in March 2021 and a personal hearing on 03.06.2021, the matter was adjudicated on 29.06.2021. The Commissioner gave cogent reasons for inability to adjudicate within the unamended time limits. The appellant argued adjudication should have been within stipulated time despite no reply, but this aspect was examined. As no submissions were made on merits, only the limitation issue was considered. No infirmity was found in the Commissioner's order, and the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
