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 penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on both appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the appellants, acting as Customs Brokers, discharged their obligations by submitting bills of entry based on documents provided by the importer. The tribunal found no evidence implicating the appellants in the alleged mis-declaration or misuse of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC). Investigations were deemed incomplete, with key persons not examined, and the Commissioner's presumption of the appellants' knowledge of any conspiracy was considered speculative and unsupported. The tribunal emphasized that Customs Brokers are not required to verify the authenticity of the importer's declarations or documents. Consequently, the penalty was quashed, and the appeals were allowed.
The CESTAT set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on both appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the appellants, acting as Customs Brokers, discharged their obligations by submitting bills of entry based on documents provided by the importer. The tribunal found no evidence implicating the appellants in the alleged mis-declaration or misuse of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC). Investigations were deemed incomplete, with key persons not examined, and the Commissioner's presumption of the appellants' knowledge of any conspiracy was considered speculative and unsupported. The tribunal emphasized that Customs Brokers are not required to verify the authenticity of the importer's declarations or documents. Consequently, the penalty was quashed, and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
