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 held that penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2013 requires establishing violations under grounds (a), (b), or (c) through documentary evidence. While the Authority has discretionary power to impose penalties up to 50,000 for regulatory non-compliance or misconduct, the Inquiry Report was found inconclusive and the Commissioner failed to demonstrate specific violations. The Tribunal noted that Regulation 18 provides for either license revocation or penalty imposition, not both. Despite the Authority's jurisdictional competence to determine appropriate sanctions, the lack of substantiated evidence linking the Customs Broker's actions to prescribed violations warranted deletion of the penalty. Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed.
CESTAT held that penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2013 requires establishing violations under grounds (a), (b), or (c) through documentary evidence. While the Authority has discretionary power to impose penalties up to 50,000 for regulatory non-compliance or misconduct, the Inquiry Report was found inconclusive and the Commissioner failed to demonstrate specific violations. The Tribunal noted that Regulation 18 provides for either license revocation or penalty imposition, not both. Despite the Authority's jurisdictional competence to determine appropriate sanctions, the lack of substantiated evidence linking the Customs Broker's actions to prescribed violations warranted deletion of the penalty. Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.