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 upheld penalties against customs broker for facilitating import of misdeclared worn clothing. Broker failed to exercise due diligence by proceeding without proper importer authorization and verification, relying solely on unauthorized intermediary Nikhil Kumar. Goods were incorrectly classified under CTH 62099090/62044990/62114990 instead of 63090000 and required DGFT authorization as restricted items. Broker submitted false report despite consignment being under alert. Time bar argument rejected as delay occurred due to difficulties in securing importer's presence. Penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act maintained as broker's actions rendered goods liable for confiscation. Appeal dismissed.
CESTAT upheld penalties against customs broker for facilitating import of misdeclared worn clothing. Broker failed to exercise due diligence by proceeding without proper importer authorization and verification, relying solely on unauthorized intermediary Nikhil Kumar. Goods were incorrectly classified under CTH 62099090/62044990/62114990 instead of 63090000 and required DGFT authorization as restricted items. Broker submitted false report despite consignment being under alert. Time bar argument rejected as delay occurred due to difficulties in securing importer's presence. Penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act maintained as broker's actions rendered goods liable for confiscation. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
