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 held that penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was improperly imposed against the importer. The tribunal found no substantive evidence of misrepresentation, noting that misrepresentation requires patent factual distortion, not mere inference. The goods were already cleared and unavailable for physical confiscation, rendering fine quantification under section 125 a futile exercise. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the importer's appeal and dismissed the Commissioner's cross-appeal, effectively setting aside the penalty and affirming that procedural requirements for penalty imposition were not satisfied.
CESTAT held that penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was improperly imposed against the importer. The tribunal found no substantive evidence of misrepresentation, noting that misrepresentation requires patent factual distortion, not mere inference. The goods were already cleared and unavailable for physical confiscation, rendering fine quantification under section 125 a futile exercise. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the importer's appeal and dismissed the Commissioner's cross-appeal, effectively setting aside the penalty and affirming that procedural requirements for penalty imposition were not satisfied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.