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 broker's appeal challenging penalties under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found no substantive evidence demonstrating the appellant's deliberate connivance or intentional misrepresentation. The penalties were deemed unsustainable due to lack of independent findings, absence of conclusive proof of knowledge, and improper reliance on statements recorded without following prescribed legal procedures. Critically, the Tribunal emphasized that lending an Import Export Code (IEC) does not constitute a statutory offense. Consequently, the appellate authority allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the imposed penalties against the customs broker.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs broker's appeal challenging penalties under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found no substantive evidence demonstrating the appellant's deliberate connivance or intentional misrepresentation. The penalties were deemed unsustainable due to lack of independent findings, absence of conclusive proof of knowledge, and improper reliance on statements recorded without following prescribed legal procedures. Critically, the Tribunal emphasized that lending an Import Export Code (IEC) does not constitute a statutory offense. Consequently, the appellate authority allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the imposed penalties against the customs broker.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
