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 set aside the impugned demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties arising from alleged clandestine removal and alleged shortages, holding that the adjudicating authority failed to verify physical stock-taking/weighment records, relied on uncorroborated private handwritten notes without compliance with statutory admissibility safeguards, and admitted statements without observance of mandatory evidentiary procedure. The Tribunal found absence of tangible corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance, no seizure or identified buyers, and no proof of reversalable credit misuse; accordingly the duty demand is unsustainable. Penalty imposed under r.26 CER, 2002 on the company's director is quashed. Appeal disposed of.
CESTAT set aside the impugned demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties arising from alleged clandestine removal and alleged shortages, holding that the adjudicating authority failed to verify physical stock-taking/weighment records, relied on uncorroborated private handwritten notes without compliance with statutory admissibility safeguards, and admitted statements without observance of mandatory evidentiary procedure. The Tribunal found absence of tangible corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance, no seizure or identified buyers, and no proof of reversalable credit misuse; accordingly the duty demand is unsustainable. Penalty imposed under r.26 CER, 2002 on the company's director is quashed. Appeal disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.