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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and the goods confiscation was set aside. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without proper documentary proof and DGFT's explicit cancellation of the export license.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and the goods confiscation was set aside. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without proper documentary proof and DGFT's explicit cancellation of the export license.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.