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 examined the imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 against appellants accused of colluding to divert duty-free goods imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme into the local market. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between criminal mens rea and the strict liability nature of customs penalties. It found no cogent evidence demonstrating a common intention or active collusion between the appellants and other parties, including importers and High Sea Sellers, to facilitate diversion or contravention of customs provisions. The appellants' statements lacked corroborative support, and the prosecution failed to establish the requisite nexus for penalty imposition under section 112(a). Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable and set aside the charges, allowing the appeal.
The CESTAT examined the imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 against appellants accused of colluding to divert duty-free goods imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme into the local market. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between criminal mens rea and the strict liability nature of customs penalties. It found no cogent evidence demonstrating a common intention or active collusion between the appellants and other parties, including importers and High Sea Sellers, to facilitate diversion or contravention of customs provisions. The appellants' statements lacked corroborative support, and the prosecution failed to establish the requisite nexus for penalty imposition under section 112(a). Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable and set aside the charges, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.