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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, holding that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act are not admissible as relevant evidence under section 138B unless the maker is first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority, after forming an opinion on admissibility, admits the statement and affords the accused the opportunity of cross-examination. Because the impugned penalty was predicated on such inadmissible statements and the procedural safeguards were not observed, the penalty levied on the appellant (including that attributed to the managing director) could not be sustained and was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, holding that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act are not admissible as relevant evidence under section 138B unless the maker is first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority, after forming an opinion on admissibility, admits the statement and affords the accused the opportunity of cross-examination. Because the impugned penalty was predicated on such inadmissible statements and the procedural safeguards were not observed, the penalty levied on the appellant (including that attributed to the managing director) could not be sustained and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.