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" ?
AT dismissed the appeal challenging enhancement of penalty under section 19(1), holding that the respondents were not the masterminds behind outward remittances and fabricated import documentation alleged to contravene section 3(b) and section 10(6) of FEMA read with Reg. 6(1) of the 2000 Regulations. The Tribunal accepted respondents' plea that remittances were effected at the instance of unidentified third parties who used respondents' bank accounts and that the enforcement agency failed to apprehend or effectively investigate those alleged principal wrongdoers. Given this, enhancement of penalty was unjustified. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit, without prejudice to the merits of respondents' pending cross-appeals.
AT dismissed the appeal challenging enhancement of penalty under section 19(1), holding that the respondents were not the masterminds behind outward remittances and fabricated import documentation alleged to contravene section 3(b) and section 10(6) of FEMA read with Reg. 6(1) of the 2000 Regulations. The Tribunal accepted respondents' plea that remittances were effected at the instance of unidentified third parties who used respondents' bank accounts and that the enforcement agency failed to apprehend or effectively investigate those alleged principal wrongdoers. Given this, enhancement of penalty was unjustified. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit, without prejudice to the merits of respondents' pending cross-appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.