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 challenging under-valuation allegations and differential customs duty demand under Section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue's case relied on computer printouts seized from M/s Winsor Enterprises by DRI and retracted statements of appellant's partners, identical evidence used in sister concern M/s Plastic Cottage Trading Co.'s proceedings. Following precedent established in Junaid Kudia v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Import-II, where coordinate bench held such evidence insufficient for value enhancement, CESTAT determined differential duty demand, consequential penalty imposition, and goods confiscation legally unsustainable. The adjudicating authority's order dated 21.08.2020 was set aside as it failed legal scrutiny based on same investigation materials previously rejected.
CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging under-valuation allegations and differential customs duty demand under Section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue's case relied on computer printouts seized from M/s Winsor Enterprises by DRI and retracted statements of appellant's partners, identical evidence used in sister concern M/s Plastic Cottage Trading Co.'s proceedings. Following precedent established in Junaid Kudia v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Import-II, where coordinate bench held such evidence insufficient for value enhancement, CESTAT determined differential duty demand, consequential penalty imposition, and goods confiscation legally unsustainable. The adjudicating authority's order dated 21.08.2020 was set aside as it failed legal scrutiny based on same investigation materials previously rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
