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" ?
AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's penalty. The Tribunal found that the AA evaluated evidence and exercised lawful discretion under Section 13(1) of FEMA, which prescribes a maximum penalty up to thrice the sum involved, rather than an obligatory maximum. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the imposed penalty was arbitrary, disproportionate, or that the AA failed to consider material facts; absent such showing, interference was unwarranted. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the adjudication order in all material respects and dismissed the appeal.
AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's penalty. The Tribunal found that the AA evaluated evidence and exercised lawful discretion under Section 13(1) of FEMA, which prescribes a maximum penalty up to thrice the sum involved, rather than an obligatory maximum. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the imposed penalty was arbitrary, disproportionate, or that the AA failed to consider material facts; absent such showing, interference was unwarranted. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the adjudication order in all material respects and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.