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 impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants' failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record's silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants' failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record's silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.