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 impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.