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 the plea of double jeopardy by the appellant courier company fails because regulatory contravention under the Courier Regulations and the substantive offence under the Customs Act are distinct. CESTAT found no material establishing active collusion or abetment by the courier company in the attempted export of prohibited pseudo-ephedrine; hence no offence under the Customs Act was made out against it and penal action against the courier company is dropped. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the tribunal reduced the monetary punishment imposed on the individual appellant to Rs.200,000 under each of ss.114(i) and 114AA, with consequential relief as available in law; appeal disposed.
CESTAT held that the plea of double jeopardy by the appellant courier company fails because regulatory contravention under the Courier Regulations and the substantive offence under the Customs Act are distinct. CESTAT found no material establishing active collusion or abetment by the courier company in the attempted export of prohibited pseudo-ephedrine; hence no offence under the Customs Act was made out against it and penal action against the courier company is dropped. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the tribunal reduced the monetary punishment imposed on the individual appellant to Rs.200,000 under each of ss.114(i) and 114AA, with consequential relief as available in law; appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.