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 penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the evidence derived from the seized DVD was inadmissible due to the absence of the original DVD and non-compliance with Section 138C certification requirements. Statements recorded without adherence to Section 138B procedures, including those from co-accused and retracted confessions, were deemed unreliable and inadmissible. The CDR analysis failed to establish the appellant's involvement, and allegations of pecuniary benefits lacked corroborative evidence. Consequently, the essential elements for penalty imposition under Sections 114(i) and 114AA were not satisfied, rendering the penalties unwarranted. The appellant's involvement in the alleged smuggling offence was not substantiated on the record, leading to the dismissal of the impugned penalties.
The CESTAT set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the evidence derived from the seized DVD was inadmissible due to the absence of the original DVD and non-compliance with Section 138C certification requirements. Statements recorded without adherence to Section 138B procedures, including those from co-accused and retracted confessions, were deemed unreliable and inadmissible. The CDR analysis failed to establish the appellant's involvement, and allegations of pecuniary benefits lacked corroborative evidence. Consequently, the essential elements for penalty imposition under Sections 114(i) and 114AA were not satisfied, rendering the penalties unwarranted. The appellant's involvement in the alleged smuggling offence was not substantiated on the record, leading to the dismissal of the impugned penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.