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 overturned the imposition of penalties under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, arising from alleged violations including improper storage, lack of solvency certificates, inadequate surveillance, and deficient signage and digital signatures. The tribunal found that the licensing authority improperly relied on routine invocation of extended limitation periods without considering the broader statutory evolution of custodianship and the liberalized assessment regime. Minor infractions, especially those rectified, do not warrant penal action when they do not significantly impact revenue protection. Consequently, the tribunal held that the penalty imposition lacked substantive cause, and the invocation of section 111(j) was unfounded. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT overturned the imposition of penalties under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, arising from alleged violations including improper storage, lack of solvency certificates, inadequate surveillance, and deficient signage and digital signatures. The tribunal found that the licensing authority improperly relied on routine invocation of extended limitation periods without considering the broader statutory evolution of custodianship and the liberalized assessment regime. Minor infractions, especially those rectified, do not warrant penal action when they do not significantly impact revenue protection. Consequently, the tribunal held that the penalty imposition lacked substantive cause, and the invocation of section 111(j) was unfounded. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.