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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT quashed the penalty imposed under s.112(b), Customs Act, 1962, finding that the impugned conviction rested solely on a statement retracted as given under duress and lacked independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated: the Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to challenge recoveries, and the cash recovery purportedly linked to the Appellant was found unreliable given the circumstances. In consequence, the CESTAT set aside the adjudicating authority's order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the penalty could not be sustained on the record before it.
The CESTAT quashed the penalty imposed under s.112(b), Customs Act, 1962, finding that the impugned conviction rested solely on a statement retracted as given under duress and lacked independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated: the Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to challenge recoveries, and the cash recovery purportedly linked to the Appellant was found unreliable given the circumstances. In consequence, the CESTAT set aside the adjudicating authority's order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the penalty could not be sustained on the record before it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.