Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT appellate order involving misdeclaration of imported goods classified as "China Glass Imitation Stone". The tribunal rejected appellant's challenge to valuation and penalty, finding substantial evidence of intentional undervaluation. Despite appellant's request for cross-examination, the tribunal determined that no procedural prejudice occurred, as the appellant's own statements implicated his involvement in the import irregularities. The original authority's valuation methodology using contemporaneous import data was deemed appropriate. The tribunal upheld the original order, imposing penalties under Sections 112(b) and 114AA, and consequently dismissed the appeals against the demand notices. The decision affirmed the comprehensive evidentiary chain establishing the appellant's direct participation in the misdeclaration scheme.
CESTAT appellate order involving misdeclaration of imported goods classified as "China Glass Imitation Stone". The tribunal rejected appellant's challenge to valuation and penalty, finding substantial evidence of intentional undervaluation. Despite appellant's request for cross-examination, the tribunal determined that no procedural prejudice occurred, as the appellant's own statements implicated his involvement in the import irregularities. The original authority's valuation methodology using contemporaneous import data was deemed appropriate. The tribunal upheld the original order, imposing penalties under Sections 112(b) and 114AA, and consequently dismissed the appeals against the demand notices. The decision affirmed the comprehensive evidentiary chain establishing the appellant's direct participation in the misdeclaration scheme.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.