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 set aside the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as against Appellant No. 1, holding that the record contains no direct evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling and that investigative witnesses material to the Panchanama were either not present throughout the operation or were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal also found breach of principles of natural justice with respect to Appellant No. 2 due to failure to procure Panch witnesses for cross-examination and insufficient evidence of possession of the seized gold. Consequently, the penalty on Appellant No. 2 was reduced from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 and the impugned order as to penalties was otherwise modified and the appeal disposed.
CESTAT set aside the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as against Appellant No. 1, holding that the record contains no direct evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling and that investigative witnesses material to the Panchanama were either not present throughout the operation or were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal also found breach of principles of natural justice with respect to Appellant No. 2 due to failure to procure Panch witnesses for cross-examination and insufficient evidence of possession of the seized gold. Consequently, the penalty on Appellant No. 2 was reduced from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 and the impugned order as to penalties was otherwise modified and the appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
