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 impugned order, finding a breach of natural justice because the adjudicatory authority failed to afford the appellant an adequate opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 138B retain relevance in departmental adjudication as well as criminal proceedings, but their use without permitting cross-examination vitiates the proceedings. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication, directing the authority to permit effective cross-examination of witnesses, reassess the evidentiary weight of Section 138B statements in light of such testing, and pass a fresh reasoned order consistent with principles of fair hearing.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, finding a breach of natural justice because the adjudicatory authority failed to afford the appellant an adequate opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 138B retain relevance in departmental adjudication as well as criminal proceedings, but their use without permitting cross-examination vitiates the proceedings. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication, directing the authority to permit effective cross-examination of witnesses, reassess the evidentiary weight of Section 138B statements in light of such testing, and pass a fresh reasoned order consistent with principles of fair hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.