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 appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
CESTAT allowed appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
