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 HC upheld the decision of the CESTAT, dismissing the appeal against the respondents regarding recovery of customs duty under Sections 28 and 147 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found no basis to impose liability on the respondents for the wrongful acts of their agent, noting the respondents' demonstration of bona fide conduct through payment evidence. The statements implicating the agent in malafide activities were insufficient to extend liability to the principal importers under Section 147(2). As the appellant's contentions were confined to factual disputes resolved in favor of the respondents, no substantial question of law arose warranting interference. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order in favor of the respondents.
The HC upheld the decision of the CESTAT, dismissing the appeal against the respondents regarding recovery of customs duty under Sections 28 and 147 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found no basis to impose liability on the respondents for the wrongful acts of their agent, noting the respondents' demonstration of bona fide conduct through payment evidence. The statements implicating the agent in malafide activities were insufficient to extend liability to the principal importers under Section 147(2). As the appellant's contentions were confined to factual disputes resolved in favor of the respondents, no substantial question of law arose warranting interference. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order in favor of the respondents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
