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 confirmed demand of differential customs duty and interest based on four invoices allegedly retrieved from a mobile phone, as the procedure under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 was not followed and the evidence was inadmissible. The adjudicating authority's revaluation of 165 Bills of Entry over five years without proper comparison or verification of goods lacked material basis and violated valuation rules. The appellant's contemporaneous import data was accepted, and the arbitrary duty demand was quashed. Penalties under Sections 112(b), 114A, and 114AA imposed on both appellants were also set aside, including the penalty on appellant 2 under Section 112(b), as no offense was established against him. All demands and penalties were annulled, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT set aside the confirmed demand of differential customs duty and interest based on four invoices allegedly retrieved from a mobile phone, as the procedure under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 was not followed and the evidence was inadmissible. The adjudicating authority's revaluation of 165 Bills of Entry over five years without proper comparison or verification of goods lacked material basis and violated valuation rules. The appellant's contemporaneous import data was accepted, and the arbitrary duty demand was quashed. Penalties under Sections 112(b), 114A, and 114AA imposed on both appellants were also set aside, including the penalty on appellant 2 under Section 112(b), as no offense was established against him. All demands and penalties were annulled, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
