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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 imposed under s.112(a)(ii) on the appellant (formerly M/s Bentley Motors). The Tribunal held that the foundational order confiscating goods under s.111(m) as against other persons had already been quashed by final order dated 18.11.2024, which alone vitiated the basis for penal liability of the appellant. Further, the Tribunal found no evidence of mala fides or of any act or omission by the appellant that rendered the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(m); supplementary invoices and account adjustments were disclosed during the investigation. Accordingly, the s.112 penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 imposed under s.112(a)(ii) on the appellant (formerly M/s Bentley Motors). The Tribunal held that the foundational order confiscating goods under s.111(m) as against other persons had already been quashed by final order dated 18.11.2024, which alone vitiated the basis for penal liability of the appellant. Further, the Tribunal found no evidence of mala fides or of any act or omission by the appellant that rendered the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(m); supplementary invoices and account adjustments were disclosed during the investigation. Accordingly, the s.112 penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.