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 confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the Department failed to adduce corroborative evidence establishing foreign origin or illegal importation of the seized dry dates; expert testing lacked probative value and third-party trader opinions based on naked-eye inspection constituted inadmissible hearsay. The record did not disclose any inquiry or material justifying a belief that the consignment contravened the relevant notification, rendering the seizure and consequent punitive measures founded on assumption and presumption. No liability under Section 112(b) was established against the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the Department failed to adduce corroborative evidence establishing foreign origin or illegal importation of the seized dry dates; expert testing lacked probative value and third-party trader opinions based on naked-eye inspection constituted inadmissible hearsay. The record did not disclose any inquiry or material justifying a belief that the consignment contravened the relevant notification, rendering the seizure and consequent punitive measures founded on assumption and presumption. No liability under Section 112(b) was established against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.