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 adjudicated a customs dispute involving procedural time limitations under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act. The tribunal found the Principal Commissioner's reasoning illogical, noting that the department unreasonably delayed proceedings beyond statutory timelines. Despite a corrigendum issued subsequent to the original show cause notice, the appellant had timely deposited requisite amounts and complied with legal requirements. The tribunal held that the proceedings initiated on 05.03.2018 were conclusively deemed closed, as the adjudication exceeded prescribed one-year limitation period. The personal hearing occurred on 27.09.2018, and the final order was passed on 16.12.2019, significantly breaching statutory timelines. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, effectively terminating the customs proceedings.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs dispute involving procedural time limitations under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act. The tribunal found the Principal Commissioner's reasoning illogical, noting that the department unreasonably delayed proceedings beyond statutory timelines. Despite a corrigendum issued subsequent to the original show cause notice, the appellant had timely deposited requisite amounts and complied with legal requirements. The tribunal held that the proceedings initiated on 05.03.2018 were conclusively deemed closed, as the adjudication exceeded prescribed one-year limitation period. The personal hearing occurred on 27.09.2018, and the final order was passed on 16.12.2019, significantly breaching statutory timelines. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, effectively terminating the customs proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
