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" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside penalties imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act. The tribunal found no credible evidence of misdeclaration or manipulation of the Certificate of Origin regarding dry dates exported from UAE versus Pakistan, noting failure to conduct proper inquiries with issuing authorities as required under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin) Rules, 2020. Penalties under Section 112(a) were held applicable despite absence of mens rea, but Section 112(b) penalties requiring intent were not sustained. The allegations against the individual accused of masterminding the scheme lacked substantiation. Consequently, confiscation and penalty orders were quashed, and the appellants' appeals were allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside penalties imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act. The tribunal found no credible evidence of misdeclaration or manipulation of the Certificate of Origin regarding dry dates exported from UAE versus Pakistan, noting failure to conduct proper inquiries with issuing authorities as required under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin) Rules, 2020. Penalties under Section 112(a) were held applicable despite absence of mens rea, but Section 112(b) penalties requiring intent were not sustained. The allegations against the individual accused of masterminding the scheme lacked substantiation. Consequently, confiscation and penalty orders were quashed, and the appellants' appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.