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 allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the appellant for alleged fraudulent availment and passing on of Cenvat Credit. The tribunal held that the statutory requirements for admissibility of statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act were not met, as the mandatory procedure under Section 9D was not followed. The appellant was not found to have supplied goods to the manufacturers as alleged, and there was no evidence of mens rea or deliberate evasion. Additionally, the main noticee had settled the dispute under the SVLDRS scheme, precluding penalty on the appellant. The penalty demand was also barred by limitation due to absence of evidence of collusion or fraudulent intent. Consequently, the penalty order was unsustainable and was quashed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the appellant for alleged fraudulent availment and passing on of Cenvat Credit. The tribunal held that the statutory requirements for admissibility of statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act were not met, as the mandatory procedure under Section 9D was not followed. The appellant was not found to have supplied goods to the manufacturers as alleged, and there was no evidence of mens rea or deliberate evasion. Additionally, the main noticee had settled the dispute under the SVLDRS scheme, precluding penalty on the appellant. The penalty demand was also barred by limitation due to absence of evidence of collusion or fraudulent intent. Consequently, the penalty order was unsustainable and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
