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 Tribunal's determination that the goods were not prohibited under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the violation of Rules 14(1) and 14(2) pertained solely to license conditions under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and not to prohibition under customs law. Consequently, the Tribunal correctly set aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposition under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The claimed exemption under Notification 53/1997 did not vitiate this conclusion. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
The HC upheld the Tribunal's determination that the goods were not prohibited under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the violation of Rules 14(1) and 14(2) pertained solely to license conditions under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and not to prohibition under customs law. Consequently, the Tribunal correctly set aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposition under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The claimed exemption under Notification 53/1997 did not vitiate this conclusion. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
