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, set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 and quashed the demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the second proviso to the relevant Notification had been omitted during the period in issue, removing any statutory obligation on the bank or the appellant to execute the condition purportedly breached; consequently recovery of customs duty was without authority of law. Statements recorded under s.108 were inadmissible because the s.138B procedure was not complied with. In view of these findings the demand under the Notification, penalty under s.112 and penalty against a partner under s.114AA were all set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 and quashed the demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the second proviso to the relevant Notification had been omitted during the period in issue, removing any statutory obligation on the bank or the appellant to execute the condition purportedly breached; consequently recovery of customs duty was without authority of law. Statements recorded under s.108 were inadmissible because the s.138B procedure was not complied with. In view of these findings the demand under the Notification, penalty under s.112 and penalty against a partner under s.114AA were all set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.