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 ruled that the impugned order against the appellants is set aside. The tribunal found no substantive violations of SCMTR, 2018 regulations or Customs Act provisions, specifically noting that the regulations were not fully operational for the specific port during the relevant period. The court determined that no evidence supported allegations of improper export procedures, and consequently, the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties were unwarranted. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, effectively nullifying the original order by the Commissioner of Customs.
CESTAT ruled that the impugned order against the appellants is set aside. The tribunal found no substantive violations of SCMTR, 2018 regulations or Customs Act provisions, specifically noting that the regulations were not fully operational for the specific port during the relevant period. The court determined that no evidence supported allegations of improper export procedures, and consequently, the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties were unwarranted. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, effectively nullifying the original order by the Commissioner of Customs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
