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 held that the vessel in question was a foreign-going vessel during its voyage between two Indian ports and thus, consumption of bunker fuel and stores was exempt from Customs duty under Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's payment of duty and filing of Bill of Entry, allegedly under Customs officers' direction, did not convert the nature of the voyage into a coastal run. The Tribunal found the demand of differential Customs duty and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable, as the Commissioner erred in disregarding relevant facts and relying solely on procedural compliance. The penalty and differential duty demand of Rs. 96,136 along with interest were set aside. The appeal was allowed, affirming that there was no intention to evade duty and the vessel's operation aligned with established legal precedents distinguishing foreign-going vessels from coastal runs.
The CESTAT held that the vessel in question was a foreign-going vessel during its voyage between two Indian ports and thus, consumption of bunker fuel and stores was exempt from Customs duty under Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's payment of duty and filing of Bill of Entry, allegedly under Customs officers' direction, did not convert the nature of the voyage into a coastal run. The Tribunal found the demand of differential Customs duty and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable, as the Commissioner erred in disregarding relevant facts and relying solely on procedural compliance. The penalty and differential duty demand of Rs. 96,136 along with interest were set aside. The appeal was allowed, affirming that there was no intention to evade duty and the vessel's operation aligned with established legal precedents distinguishing foreign-going vessels from coastal runs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.