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 appellant's appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i), and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Department alleged appellant operated as syndicate facilitating clearance of mis-declared/undervalued goods and allowed co-conspirator use of office premises and computer. Tribunal held no evidence substantiated allegations that appellant facilitated clearance of mis-declared goods or was connected with subject goods. Allowing usage of office premises and computer cannot constitute connivance in alleged offence. Investigation failed to establish conditions for invoking penalty provisions under Sections 112 and 114AA. Adjudicating authority's finding that appellant provided assistance in clearance of contraband goods was speculative without evidentiary support. Penalties set aside as unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i), and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Department alleged appellant operated as syndicate facilitating clearance of mis-declared/undervalued goods and allowed co-conspirator use of office premises and computer. Tribunal held no evidence substantiated allegations that appellant facilitated clearance of mis-declared goods or was connected with subject goods. Allowing usage of office premises and computer cannot constitute connivance in alleged offence. Investigation failed to establish conditions for invoking penalty provisions under Sections 112 and 114AA. Adjudicating authority's finding that appellant provided assistance in clearance of contraband goods was speculative without evidentiary support. Penalties set aside as unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.