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 High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Tribunal. The assessee had fraudulently claimed and received refund of 4% Special Additional Duty by submitting forged documents to the Customs authorities, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The adjudicating authorities rightly invoked the extended period of recovery u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordered recovery of the erroneously sanctioned refund along with interest and penalty by denying the benefits under the said notification. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no substantial question of law arising from the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Tribunal. The assessee had fraudulently claimed and received refund of 4% Special Additional Duty by submitting forged documents to the Customs authorities, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The adjudicating authorities rightly invoked the extended period of recovery u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordered recovery of the erroneously sanctioned refund along with interest and penalty by denying the benefits under the said notification. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no substantial question of law arising from the case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.