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" ?
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation order and penalty regarding an allegedly smuggled motorcycle. The Tribunal determined Hyderabad Customs had proper jurisdiction as the vehicle was registered with RTA Hyderabad. However, the confiscation u/s 111(d), (i), and (j) of Customs Act was unsustainable as the bike wasn't "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33), wasn't concealed, and no evidence showed unauthorized removal from customs area. The penalty u/s 112(b) was also invalidated as there was no proof the appellant knew the bike was liable for confiscation. The absence of action against the original seller (Sunil Lawrence) did not affect the validity of show cause notice or subsequent proceedings.
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation order and penalty regarding an allegedly smuggled motorcycle. The Tribunal determined Hyderabad Customs had proper jurisdiction as the vehicle was registered with RTA Hyderabad. However, the confiscation u/s 111(d), (i), and (j) of Customs Act was unsustainable as the bike wasn't "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33), wasn't concealed, and no evidence showed unauthorized removal from customs area. The penalty u/s 112(b) was also invalidated as there was no proof the appellant knew the bike was liable for confiscation. The absence of action against the original seller (Sunil Lawrence) did not affect the validity of show cause notice or subsequent proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
