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 order of confiscation of 18,880 kgs of Zinc Ash and the truck bearing Registration No. UP-78DN/3179, along with the associated redemption fines, under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence establishing that the goods were smuggled from Nepal, noting that the Zinc Ash was accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were not forged. The appellants provided credible purchase receipts and ledger entries demonstrating local procurement and sale. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling, which was unmet. Consequently, no violation warranting penalties under Section 112(a)/(b) was established, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
The CESTAT set aside the order of confiscation of 18,880 kgs of Zinc Ash and the truck bearing Registration No. UP-78DN/3179, along with the associated redemption fines, under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence establishing that the goods were smuggled from Nepal, noting that the Zinc Ash was accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were not forged. The appellants provided credible purchase receipts and ledger entries demonstrating local procurement and sale. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling, which was unmet. Consequently, no violation warranting penalties under Section 112(a)/(b) was established, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
