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 and set aside the impugned orders to the extent they upheld demands of differential customs duty, interest and penalties. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared at importation, which had been scrutinised and enhanced by the proper officer at assessment and clearance, could not be further re-determined absent cogent reasons prescribed under s.14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. The Department failed to discharge the burden of proving under-valuation or illicit flowbacks; reliance primarily on a statement of a co-appellant was inadequate. Consequently, reassessment and penal consequences premised on purported suppression or misdeclaration were quashed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders to the extent they upheld demands of differential customs duty, interest and penalties. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared at importation, which had been scrutinised and enhanced by the proper officer at assessment and clearance, could not be further re-determined absent cogent reasons prescribed under s.14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. The Department failed to discharge the burden of proving under-valuation or illicit flowbacks; reliance primarily on a statement of a co-appellant was inadequate. Consequently, reassessment and penal consequences premised on purported suppression or misdeclaration were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.