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 allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudication order insofar as confiscation and imposition of penalties, holding that the authorities failed to undertake requisite inquiries under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 before rejecting the Certificate of Origin purportedly from UAE. The Tribunal found no credible evidence that the Certificate was manipulated or that appellants committed acts attracting confiscation under s.111(m) or penalties under ss.112(a),(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Given insufficient proof and lack of consultation with the foreign issuing authority, the order imposing liability was annulled and the appellants' liability to confiscation and penalties was not sustained.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudication order insofar as confiscation and imposition of penalties, holding that the authorities failed to undertake requisite inquiries under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 before rejecting the Certificate of Origin purportedly from UAE. The Tribunal found no credible evidence that the Certificate was manipulated or that appellants committed acts attracting confiscation under s.111(m) or penalties under ss.112(a),(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Given insufficient proof and lack of consultation with the foreign issuing authority, the order imposing liability was annulled and the appellants' liability to confiscation and penalties was not sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.