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 dismissed the three Revenue appeals and upheld the Comm'r(A)'s order setting aside imposition of penalty under s.114AA of the Customs Act against the respondent. The Tribunal held statements recorded under s.108 could not be relied upon where mandatory procedural safeguards of s.138B were not complied with, echoing the principle that such statements must be recorded before the adjudicating authority to obviate coercion. The Comm'r(A) had found no evidence linking the respondent to registration errors, no knowledge of the officer's mistake, and that the duty credit scrips were duly issued and reflected on the EDI system; on these findings the penalty order was unsustainable.
CESTAT dismissed the three Revenue appeals and upheld the Comm'r(A)'s order setting aside imposition of penalty under s.114AA of the Customs Act against the respondent. The Tribunal held statements recorded under s.108 could not be relied upon where mandatory procedural safeguards of s.138B were not complied with, echoing the principle that such statements must be recorded before the adjudicating authority to obviate coercion. The Comm'r(A) had found no evidence linking the respondent to registration errors, no knowledge of the officer's mistake, and that the duty credit scrips were duly issued and reflected on the EDI system; on these findings the penalty order was unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
