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, set aside the impugned order and discharged the importer-appellant and the individual accused of liability. The Tribunal held Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof on the preponderance of probabilities: electronic documents were inadmissible, the contested valuation methodology lacked legal foundation, and the Country of Origin (COO) certificates were not successfully impugned or shown to relate to different shipments. Revenue also did not pursue corroborative investigation with foreign authorities regarding alleged fake COO certificates. Consequently, findings of anti-dumping evasion and attendant penalties could not be sustained, confiscation was inapplicable, and penalty imposition was overturned.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and discharged the importer-appellant and the individual accused of liability. The Tribunal held Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof on the preponderance of probabilities: electronic documents were inadmissible, the contested valuation methodology lacked legal foundation, and the Country of Origin (COO) certificates were not successfully impugned or shown to relate to different shipments. Revenue also did not pursue corroborative investigation with foreign authorities regarding alleged fake COO certificates. Consequently, findings of anti-dumping evasion and attendant penalties could not be sustained, confiscation was inapplicable, and penalty imposition was overturned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.