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 upheld the demand of differential duty with interest and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaration of imported stainless steel water bottles possessing vacuum insulation characteristics, contrary to the declared description. The Tribunal affirmed confiscation of the seized goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, allowing redemption upon payment of Rs. 5 lakhs. However, the appeal against the fine was partly allowed by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs, deeming the original amount excessive. The appellant's contention of bona fide misdescription was rejected, as the import documentation failed to accurately reflect the product's nature. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was otherwise upheld, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The CESTAT upheld the demand of differential duty with interest and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaration of imported stainless steel water bottles possessing vacuum insulation characteristics, contrary to the declared description. The Tribunal affirmed confiscation of the seized goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, allowing redemption upon payment of Rs. 5 lakhs. However, the appeal against the fine was partly allowed by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs, deeming the original amount excessive. The appellant's contention of bona fide misdescription was rejected, as the import documentation failed to accurately reflect the product's nature. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was otherwise upheld, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
