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 upheld the adjudicating authority's order dismissing the appeal and affirmed imposition of penalty without revocation of the customs broker licence or forfeiture of security. The Tribunal found that allegations actually sustained against the respondent concerned breaches of Regulations 10 and 11(b) of CBLR, 2013, and that the respondent was not notified of any breach of Regulation 17(9), rendering that ground invalid for want of natural justice. Applying Regulation 18 and 20, the LAA permissibly exercised discretion to impose monetary punishment rather than cancellation or security forfeiture in light of the gravity and facts of the breaches; no interference was warranted.
CESTAT upheld the adjudicating authority's order dismissing the appeal and affirmed imposition of penalty without revocation of the customs broker licence or forfeiture of security. The Tribunal found that allegations actually sustained against the respondent concerned breaches of Regulations 10 and 11(b) of CBLR, 2013, and that the respondent was not notified of any breach of Regulation 17(9), rendering that ground invalid for want of natural justice. Applying Regulation 18 and 20, the LAA permissibly exercised discretion to impose monetary punishment rather than cancellation or security forfeiture in light of the gravity and facts of the breaches; no interference was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
