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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant, a small-scale industry printer. The appellant had printed exercise notebooks for a third party without being declared as a supporting manufacturer in the EPCG license. The Tribunal determined that as a small vendor, the appellant could not reasonably be expected to know the export scheme details. The appellant's good faith was evidenced by proper payment of excise duty and accurate ER-1 returns. The Department failed to establish specific abetment by the appellant in any contravention committed by the principal exporter. Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant, a small-scale industry printer. The appellant had printed exercise notebooks for a third party without being declared as a supporting manufacturer in the EPCG license. The Tribunal determined that as a small vendor, the appellant could not reasonably be expected to know the export scheme details. The appellant's good faith was evidenced by proper payment of excise duty and accurate ER-1 returns. The Department failed to establish specific abetment by the appellant in any contravention committed by the principal exporter. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.