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 analyzed the admissibility of statements under sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act, determining that statements cannot be relied upon if procedural requirements are not followed. The tribunal found no substantive evidence beyond the challenged statement to support penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty under section 114 was set aside, as confiscation under section 113(d) was unsustainable since export had occurred. The appellate order quashed the commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by invalidating the challenged penalty based on procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
CESTAT analyzed the admissibility of statements under sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act, determining that statements cannot be relied upon if procedural requirements are not followed. The tribunal found no substantive evidence beyond the challenged statement to support penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty under section 114 was set aside, as confiscation under section 113(d) was unsustainable since export had occurred. The appellate order quashed the commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by invalidating the challenged penalty based on procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.