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 a Rs.3,00,000 penalty imposed under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the appellant was neither owner nor party concerned with carriage or concealment of the foreign-origin garments, which were not covered by s.123 nor notified under s.11. The goods had been subjected to statutory physical examination, cleared on examination, and lawful possession and sale were supported by invoices, GST returns and Bills of Entry; ownership had transferred on sale. The Tribunal found no basis for imposition of s.112(b) penalty on the appellant and quashed the levy; appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside a Rs.3,00,000 penalty imposed under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the appellant was neither owner nor party concerned with carriage or concealment of the foreign-origin garments, which were not covered by s.123 nor notified under s.11. The goods had been subjected to statutory physical examination, cleared on examination, and lawful possession and sale were supported by invoices, GST returns and Bills of Entry; ownership had transferred on sale. The Tribunal found no basis for imposition of s.112(b) penalty on the appellant and quashed the levy; appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
