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 of the anonymized CHA, setting aside the adjudicating authority's revocation of the CHA licence and related penalty/forfeiture imposed under the CHALR/CBLR framework. The Tribunal found the department failed to establish the CHA's culpability for exporters' misdeclarations, noting absence of prosecution of exporters despite summons and no evidence of CHA's active involvement; prior adverse findings against the CHA in unrelated proceedings were held insufficient to sustain current sanctions. The later OIO revocation duplicated an earlier revocation date and was therefore unsustainable. Relief was granted to the appellant, with the impugned order annulling the penalty and licence revocation.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the anonymized CHA, setting aside the adjudicating authority's revocation of the CHA licence and related penalty/forfeiture imposed under the CHALR/CBLR framework. The Tribunal found the department failed to establish the CHA's culpability for exporters' misdeclarations, noting absence of prosecution of exporters despite summons and no evidence of CHA's active involvement; prior adverse findings against the CHA in unrelated proceedings were held insufficient to sustain current sanctions. The later OIO revocation duplicated an earlier revocation date and was therefore unsustainable. Relief was granted to the appellant, with the impugned order annulling the penalty and licence revocation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.