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 invocation of extended limitation period under section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal examined the procedural validity of a show cause notice issued by revenue authorities regarding thirteen import entries. After analyzing the import documentation and assessment process, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that extended limitation period could not be arbitrarily invoked. The appellant's genuine belief in claiming exemption notification and the fact that goods were examined and cleared during original assessment were critical considerations. Relying on precedential jurisprudence, the tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal, confirming that revenue authorities cannot retrospectively challenge already assessed and cleared import entries without substantive procedural justification.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs dispute involving invocation of extended limitation period under section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal examined the procedural validity of a show cause notice issued by revenue authorities regarding thirteen import entries. After analyzing the import documentation and assessment process, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that extended limitation period could not be arbitrarily invoked. The appellant's genuine belief in claiming exemption notification and the fact that goods were examined and cleared during original assessment were critical considerations. Relying on precedential jurisprudence, the tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal, confirming that revenue authorities cannot retrospectively challenge already assessed and cleared import entries without substantive procedural justification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.