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 analyzed a case involving a Customs House Agent (CHA) facing penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found the department's allegations against the CHA unsubstantiated, noting no credible evidence of fraudulent intent or deliberate misconduct. The tribunal emphasized that penalties can only be imposed with positive proof of the CHA's direct involvement in fraudulent activities. The department failed to record the appellant's statement or provide substantive evidence of wrongdoing. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the imposed penalties unsustainable and highlighting that procedural compliance alone does not constitute a punishable offense under customs regulations.
CESTAT analyzed a case involving a Customs House Agent (CHA) facing penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found the department's allegations against the CHA unsubstantiated, noting no credible evidence of fraudulent intent or deliberate misconduct. The tribunal emphasized that penalties can only be imposed with positive proof of the CHA's direct involvement in fraudulent activities. The department failed to record the appellant's statement or provide substantive evidence of wrongdoing. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the imposed penalties unsustainable and highlighting that procedural compliance alone does not constitute a punishable offense under customs regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
