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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under s.112(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the CHA. The Tribunal held that a licensed Customs House Agent acts on importer-supplied documents and verification pursuant to the Bill of Entry, and liability for illicit importation cannot be imputed absent proof of knowledge or active participation in mis-declaration. No evidence demonstrated the CHA's awareness of pack marking or involvement in the offending importation, nor was the CHA's statement recorded in confiscation proceedings; by contrast, prior authority upholding penalty turned on an admitted voluntary statement of mis-declaration. Consequentially, penalties as to the CHA were annulled and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under s.112(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the CHA. The Tribunal held that a licensed Customs House Agent acts on importer-supplied documents and verification pursuant to the Bill of Entry, and liability for illicit importation cannot be imputed absent proof of knowledge or active participation in mis-declaration. No evidence demonstrated the CHA's awareness of pack marking or involvement in the offending importation, nor was the CHA's statement recorded in confiscation proceedings; by contrast, prior authority upholding penalty turned on an admitted voluntary statement of mis-declaration. Consequentially, penalties as to the CHA were annulled and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.