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 against confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposition. The appellant had discharged duty liability on current and past imports by August 2013, yet goods were seized later without proper show cause notice under section 124 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found no allegation of post-importation condition breaches and noted section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not extend to declarations made by importers. The original authority failed to establish grounds for invoking section 111(m) regarding different valuation requirements. Since appellant immediately rectified differential duty liability when advised goods should be assessed on retail sale price rather than transaction value, and discharged all duties with interest, no justification existed for sustaining confiscation under section 111 or penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT allowed the appeal against confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposition. The appellant had discharged duty liability on current and past imports by August 2013, yet goods were seized later without proper show cause notice under section 124 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found no allegation of post-importation condition breaches and noted section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not extend to declarations made by importers. The original authority failed to establish grounds for invoking section 111(m) regarding different valuation requirements. Since appellant immediately rectified differential duty liability when advised goods should be assessed on retail sale price rather than transaction value, and discharged all duties with interest, no justification existed for sustaining confiscation under section 111 or penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.