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 Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) that penalty under s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is inapplicable to the respondent, who was a domestic supplier and neither importer nor exporter. The Tribunal held there was no obligation on the respondent to make customs declarations, and the Revenue failed to establish the statutory elements under s.121 - that goods were smuggled, that such goods were sold, and that seized cash constituted proceeds of smuggling. Further, the Tribunal held authorities lack power to re-determine FOB value of exports; consequently the show-cause proceedings and consequent penalties predicated on re-determined FOB were unsustainable.
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) that penalty under s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is inapplicable to the respondent, who was a domestic supplier and neither importer nor exporter. The Tribunal held there was no obligation on the respondent to make customs declarations, and the Revenue failed to establish the statutory elements under s.121 - that goods were smuggled, that such goods were sold, and that seized cash constituted proceeds of smuggling. Further, the Tribunal held authorities lack power to re-determine FOB value of exports; consequently the show-cause proceedings and consequent penalties predicated on re-determined FOB were unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.