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 held that no export duty is leviable on the 14,000 MT claimed by the appellant SEZ unit, as SEZ law governs and SEZ authorities may, if warranted, proceed under SEZ Act/Rules; consequently the Department's export-duty demand quashed. The import-duty demand was unsustainable for lack of intentional evasion, but confiscation/redemption fine liability stood in part: a redemption fine reduced to Rs.1,500,000 (already realized) was upheld; no duty is payable on 1,026.7 MT. Confiscation of 7,000 MT and of vehicles was held untenable. Penal demands under s.114A were rejected; penalties under ss.72/73A(3) for procedural breaches were sustained but reduced to Rs.250,000 each. Impugned Commissioner's order modified; appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT held that no export duty is leviable on the 14,000 MT claimed by the appellant SEZ unit, as SEZ law governs and SEZ authorities may, if warranted, proceed under SEZ Act/Rules; consequently the Department's export-duty demand quashed. The import-duty demand was unsustainable for lack of intentional evasion, but confiscation/redemption fine liability stood in part: a redemption fine reduced to Rs.1,500,000 (already realized) was upheld; no duty is payable on 1,026.7 MT. Confiscation of 7,000 MT and of vehicles was held untenable. Penal demands under s.114A were rejected; penalties under ss.72/73A(3) for procedural breaches were sustained but reduced to Rs.250,000 each. Impugned Commissioner's order modified; appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
