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" ?
HC held that seizure under Customs Act s.110(1) requires proper officer to record specific written reasons demonstrating belief that goods are liable for confiscation. Mere citation of statutory provisions without explaining their applicability is insufficient. While the seizure memo was quashed for lacking detailed grounds, the show cause notice was sustained. The court emphasized that goods must be returned if notice under s.124(a) is not issued within 6 months of seizure, subject to valid extensions. Though provisional release occurred after 6 months with two 3-month extensions, investigation can proceed under Customs Act despite invalidation of seizure. The ruling balances procedural safeguards with enforcement powers.
HC held that seizure under Customs Act s.110(1) requires proper officer to record specific written reasons demonstrating belief that goods are liable for confiscation. Mere citation of statutory provisions without explaining their applicability is insufficient. While the seizure memo was quashed for lacking detailed grounds, the show cause notice was sustained. The court emphasized that goods must be returned if notice under s.124(a) is not issued within 6 months of seizure, subject to valid extensions. Though provisional release occurred after 6 months with two 3-month extensions, investigation can proceed under Customs Act despite invalidation of seizure. The ruling balances procedural safeguards with enforcement powers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
