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 appeals and set aside the impugned orders, holding that demands for differential export duty, interest, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable. The Tribunal ruled the post-2011 self-assessment regime could not be applied to transactions predating 08-04-2011, and that under the earlier regime it was incumbent on the proper officer to verify, examine, sample and assess export value when the goods were presented. The Department's failure to draw/test samples, seek clarifications or provisionally assess precluded invocation of the extended limitation period. Further, as the Let Export Order issued 09-06-2008, the demand arising from Notification No.79/2008 was inapplicable. Consequently, the redetermination and attendant fiscal and penal consequences were quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders, holding that demands for differential export duty, interest, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable. The Tribunal ruled the post-2011 self-assessment regime could not be applied to transactions predating 08-04-2011, and that under the earlier regime it was incumbent on the proper officer to verify, examine, sample and assess export value when the goods were presented. The Department's failure to draw/test samples, seek clarifications or provisionally assess precluded invocation of the extended limitation period. Further, as the Let Export Order issued 09-06-2008, the demand arising from Notification No.79/2008 was inapplicable. Consequently, the redetermination and attendant fiscal and penal consequences were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.