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" ?
Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2022 on the Appellant, who was the Director of Sales and Marketing of the co-noticee Company. The Respondent Department exhibited a non-responsive attitude. The case involved the interpretation of the "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019". Despite acknowledging that the Appellant was responsible for Sales and Marketing activities, the Commissioner held the Appellant personally liable for the manufacture of goods by the Company and the evasion of excise duty. However, the CESTAT had previously set aside the penalty order against the Appellant in 2015, and no further proceedings were initiated. Additionally, even without an application under the "Sabka Vishwas Scheme", the penalty recoverable from the Appellant should be treated as "NIL" u/s 124(1)(b) of the Amended Finance Act, 2019. The charge against the Appellant imposing penalty is unsustainable in law and facts. The CESTAT allowed the appeal, stating that there exists no scope for re-adjudication.
Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2022 on the Appellant, who was the Director of Sales and Marketing of the co-noticee Company. The Respondent Department exhibited a non-responsive attitude. The case involved the interpretation of the "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019". Despite acknowledging that the Appellant was responsible for Sales and Marketing activities, the Commissioner held the Appellant personally liable for the manufacture of goods by the Company and the evasion of excise duty. However, the CESTAT had previously set aside the penalty order against the Appellant in 2015, and no further proceedings were initiated. Additionally, even without an application under the "Sabka Vishwas Scheme", the penalty recoverable from the Appellant should be treated as "NIL" u/s 124(1)(b) of the Amended Finance Act, 2019. The charge against the Appellant imposing penalty is unsustainable in law and facts. The CESTAT allowed the appeal, stating that there exists no scope for re-adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
