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, quashed the impugned order of confiscation and set aside penalties imposed under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge the statutory burden under s.123 to prove the goods were smuggled or of foreign/Nepali origin; no admissible expert opinion or evidentiary material was produced to establish foreign origin, and the appellant's contemporaneous purchase records from local farmers were not refuted by concrete findings. Because the seized peas are not specified under s.123, confiscation could not be sustained on the record, and the consequential penal imposition under s.112 was accordingly annulled.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order of confiscation and set aside penalties imposed under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge the statutory burden under s.123 to prove the goods were smuggled or of foreign/Nepali origin; no admissible expert opinion or evidentiary material was produced to establish foreign origin, and the appellant's contemporaneous purchase records from local farmers were not refuted by concrete findings. Because the seized peas are not specified under s.123, confiscation could not be sustained on the record, and the consequential penal imposition under s.112 was accordingly annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.