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" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that statements under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible where the procedural safeguards of s.138B were not complied with, and that admission and opportunity for cross-examination are prerequisite to their evidentiary value. The Tribunal further found the proviso to s.3(2) of the Tariff Act inapplicable because both statutory conditions (requirement under the 1976 Act and a s.4A notification) were not simultaneously satisfied; consequently the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on retail price for CVD determination was unsustainable. The impugned order confirming demand under s.28(1) with interest and imposing penalty under s.112(a) was set aside. Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that statements under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible where the procedural safeguards of s.138B were not complied with, and that admission and opportunity for cross-examination are prerequisite to their evidentiary value. The Tribunal further found the proviso to s.3(2) of the Tariff Act inapplicable because both statutory conditions (requirement under the 1976 Act and a s.4A notification) were not simultaneously satisfied; consequently the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on retail price for CVD determination was unsustainable. The impugned order confirming demand under s.28(1) with interest and imposing penalty under s.112(a) was set aside. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.