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 penalties imposed on the appellant under sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, relating to alleged mis-declaration and improper import of goods. The Tribunal held that the appellant, acting as Customs Broker, cannot be held liable under section 112(a)(ii) as the Bills of Entry were filed based on import documents provided by the importer, which accurately described the goods as "Water Flow Meters." There was no evidence that the appellant had knowledge of prior consignments or acted with intent to misdeclare. Similarly, under section 114AA, no direct involvement or intentional submission of false declarations by the appellant was established. Consequently, the penalties were not sustainable and were quashed, resulting in the appeal being allowed.
The CESTAT set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, relating to alleged mis-declaration and improper import of goods. The Tribunal held that the appellant, acting as Customs Broker, cannot be held liable under section 112(a)(ii) as the Bills of Entry were filed based on import documents provided by the importer, which accurately described the goods as "Water Flow Meters." There was no evidence that the appellant had knowledge of prior consignments or acted with intent to misdeclare. Similarly, under section 114AA, no direct involvement or intentional submission of false declarations by the appellant was established. Consequently, the penalties were not sustainable and were quashed, resulting in the appeal being allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
