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 set aside the dismissal of the appellants' common compounding application under Rule 4(3) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, holding that the rejection without hearing violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the Chief Commissioner erred in bypassing the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(1) and the first proviso to Rule 4(3), prematurely invoking the second proviso without providing an opportunity of hearing. The decision was contrary to established judicial precedent affirming the maintainability of compounding applications before adjudication or issuance of show cause notices. The matter was remanded, directing the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the compounding application after determination of duty, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with restoration of the application for fresh adjudication.
The CESTAT set aside the dismissal of the appellants' common compounding application under Rule 4(3) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, holding that the rejection without hearing violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the Chief Commissioner erred in bypassing the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(1) and the first proviso to Rule 4(3), prematurely invoking the second proviso without providing an opportunity of hearing. The decision was contrary to established judicial precedent affirming the maintainability of compounding applications before adjudication or issuance of show cause notices. The matter was remanded, directing the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the compounding application after determination of duty, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with restoration of the application for fresh adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
