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 impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the penalty and confiscation orders exceeded the scope of the SCN, which invoked Section 28 of the Customs Act without specifically invoking Section 28(4) required for extended period demands. The failure to invoke Section 28(4) rendered the penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. No evidence supported applicability of Sections 132 or 135 regarding improper export, and the penalty under Section 114A was imposed without proper notice. Confiscation under Section 113 was also invalid as no specific clause was cited, and the goods had already been exported and were unavailable for confiscation. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's actions were legally untenable and quashed the penalty and confiscation orders.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the penalty and confiscation orders exceeded the scope of the SCN, which invoked Section 28 of the Customs Act without specifically invoking Section 28(4) required for extended period demands. The failure to invoke Section 28(4) rendered the penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. No evidence supported applicability of Sections 132 or 135 regarding improper export, and the penalty under Section 114A was imposed without proper notice. Confiscation under Section 113 was also invalid as no specific clause was cited, and the goods had already been exported and were unavailable for confiscation. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's actions were legally untenable and quashed the penalty and confiscation orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.