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 order, holding that the appellant validly availed benefit of N/N.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 by presenting four distinct country-of-origin certificates at import. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence to impugn the COOs, rejected demands founded on conjecture and e-mails, and held that COOs not sent for verification could not be invalidated by extrapolation from other verifications. The demand for differential duty of Rs.31,07,086 with interest was annulled, the goods were held not liable for confiscation, the redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000 under s.125 was set aside, and penalties under ss.114A and 114AA were held unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the appellant validly availed benefit of N/N.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 by presenting four distinct country-of-origin certificates at import. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence to impugn the COOs, rejected demands founded on conjecture and e-mails, and held that COOs not sent for verification could not be invalidated by extrapolation from other verifications. The demand for differential duty of Rs.31,07,086 with interest was annulled, the goods were held not liable for confiscation, the redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000 under s.125 was set aside, and penalties under ss.114A and 114AA were held unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.