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" ?
HC held that penalty under Section 50 of the FERA is not sustainable against the appellants. Reading Section 18(1)(a) with Sections 18(2) and 18(3) and the attendant notification, the Court found that non-realisation of a small percentage (~5.45%) of export proceeds did not warrant automatic penal liability where prescribed procedural requisites and reasonable steps are considered. The appellants were entitled to write-off of unrealised export bills in line with post-liberalisation RBI practice; the AD had sought write-off and the RBI failed to implement the applicable circular. The appellants had also reversed proportionate duty drawback, negating misuse of export incentives, supporting relief from penalty.
HC held that penalty under Section 50 of the FERA is not sustainable against the appellants. Reading Section 18(1)(a) with Sections 18(2) and 18(3) and the attendant notification, the Court found that non-realisation of a small percentage (~5.45%) of export proceeds did not warrant automatic penal liability where prescribed procedural requisites and reasonable steps are considered. The appellants were entitled to write-off of unrealised export bills in line with post-liberalisation RBI practice; the AD had sought write-off and the RBI failed to implement the applicable circular. The appellants had also reversed proportionate duty drawback, negating misuse of export incentives, supporting relief from penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.