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 held that the short payment of CVD assessed on transaction value rather than RSP was approved by the Customs authorities prior to clearance, rendering the subsequent show cause notice unsustainable. The appellant did not suppress any material facts nor possess mens rea to evade duty. The penalty imposed on the appellant CHA was quashed due to lack of evidence of personal involvement or intent, and because the matter was one of legal interpretation rather than deliberate concealment. The show cause notice was also barred by limitation, as the extended period did not apply where facts were known at the time of clearance. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that the short payment of CVD assessed on transaction value rather than RSP was approved by the Customs authorities prior to clearance, rendering the subsequent show cause notice unsustainable. The appellant did not suppress any material facts nor possess mens rea to evade duty. The penalty imposed on the appellant CHA was quashed due to lack of evidence of personal involvement or intent, and because the matter was one of legal interpretation rather than deliberate concealment. The show cause notice was also barred by limitation, as the extended period did not apply where facts were known at the time of clearance. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.