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 impugned demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the duty liability and clandestine removal allegations rested solely on retracted statements, rough private diary entries and other private documents seized during search, none of which constituted admissible or corroborative evidence of manufacture and clearance. The appellant-company's input-output ratio was undisputed and there was no evidence showing receipt of the alleged additional 1,965 MT of raw material. Consequently the confirmed excise demand was unsustainable and annulled; penalty under Rule 25 read with s.11AC and penalties against the individual directors under Rule 26 were also set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the duty liability and clandestine removal allegations rested solely on retracted statements, rough private diary entries and other private documents seized during search, none of which constituted admissible or corroborative evidence of manufacture and clearance. The appellant-company's input-output ratio was undisputed and there was no evidence showing receipt of the alleged additional 1,965 MT of raw material. Consequently the confirmed excise demand was unsustainable and annulled; penalty under Rule 25 read with s.11AC and penalties against the individual directors under Rule 26 were also set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.