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 Rs.25,000 penalty imposed under Reg.18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Tribunal held the Commissioner's findings that the Appellant failed to advise its client and failed to notify revenue officers were unsupported by evidence; there is no record demonstrating that the Appellant knew of or participated in the client's alleged undervaluation or evasion of customs duty. Similarly, the finding of breach of Reg.10(d) and Reg.10(e) could not be sustained, as no evidence showed the Appellant supplied incorrect information or omitted due diligence. Accordingly, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Rs.25,000 penalty imposed under Reg.18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Tribunal held the Commissioner's findings that the Appellant failed to advise its client and failed to notify revenue officers were unsupported by evidence; there is no record demonstrating that the Appellant knew of or participated in the client's alleged undervaluation or evasion of customs duty. Similarly, the finding of breach of Reg.10(d) and Reg.10(e) could not be sustained, as no evidence showed the Appellant supplied incorrect information or omitted due diligence. Accordingly, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.