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 gold seizure, determining that the Revenue failed to establish reasonable belief of smuggling. The tribunal found no substantive evidence supporting the confiscation, specifically noting the confidential information and inconclusive test report did not constitute reasonable grounds for seizure under section 123 of the Customs Act 1962. Consequently, the appellate tribunal set aside the original order of confiscation and penalty, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by nullifying the administrative action due to lack of demonstrable smuggling evidence.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs dispute involving gold seizure, determining that the Revenue failed to establish reasonable belief of smuggling. The tribunal found no substantive evidence supporting the confiscation, specifically noting the confidential information and inconclusive test report did not constitute reasonable grounds for seizure under section 123 of the Customs Act 1962. Consequently, the appellate tribunal set aside the original order of confiscation and penalty, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by nullifying the administrative action due to lack of demonstrable smuggling evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.