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 appellant imported footwear with MRP less than Rs. 500 per pair, claiming exemption from additional customs duty (SAD) and countervailing duty (CVD). However, the exemption condition required the MRP to be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself, which the appellant circumvented by merely stitching a removable cloth label. The appellant also failed to declare the VAT registration number as mandated. Consequently, the appellant was held ineligible for the exemption and liable to pay SAD, CVD along with interest u/s 28AA of the Customs Act. The goods were held confiscated u/s 111(o), and a fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed u/s 125. The extended period of limitation, penalty u/ss 112 and 114A equal to the duty amount for collusion and wilful mis-statement were also upheld. The appeals were dismissed by the CESTAT.
The appellant imported footwear with MRP less than Rs. 500 per pair, claiming exemption from additional customs duty (SAD) and countervailing duty (CVD). However, the exemption condition required the MRP to be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself, which the appellant circumvented by merely stitching a removable cloth label. The appellant also failed to declare the VAT registration number as mandated. Consequently, the appellant was held ineligible for the exemption and liable to pay SAD, CVD along with interest u/s 28AA of the Customs Act. The goods were held confiscated u/s 111(o), and a fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed u/s 125. The extended period of limitation, penalty u/ss 112 and 114A equal to the duty amount for collusion and wilful mis-statement were also upheld. The appeals were dismissed by the CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
