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 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.