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...
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, finding critical evidentiary deficiencies. The tribunal invalidated electronic evidence from CDs and pen drives due to non-compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Without mandatory certification and corroborative evidence, the department's case collapsed. The tribunal set aside the confirmed duty demands, interest, and penalties against the company. Additionally, the penalty imposed on the company's director was quashed due to lack of substantive evidence. The appeal was ultimately allowed, emphasizing strict procedural requirements for electronic evidence in tax proceedings.
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, finding critical evidentiary deficiencies. The tribunal invalidated electronic evidence from CDs and pen drives due to non-compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Without mandatory certification and corroborative evidence, the department's case collapsed. The tribunal set aside the confirmed duty demands, interest, and penalties against the company. Additionally, the penalty imposed on the company's director was quashed due to lack of substantive evidence. The appeal was ultimately allowed, emphasizing strict procedural requirements for electronic evidence in tax proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.