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 penalty imposed under s.112(a) of the Customs Act on the chartered engineer-appellant. The Tribunal found procedural infirmities: the show-cause notice initially omitted the appellant and only included him by corrigendum; statements relied on under s.108 were inadmissible given non-compliance with s.138B procedural requirements; and the appellant's role was limited to certifying installation, not the subsequent use of the imported vehicles. Further, because confiscation and penalties previously imposed on the importer and its directors were vacated, imposition of penalty on the engineer could not be sustained. The impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under s.112(a) of the Customs Act on the chartered engineer-appellant. The Tribunal found procedural infirmities: the show-cause notice initially omitted the appellant and only included him by corrigendum; statements relied on under s.108 were inadmissible given non-compliance with s.138B procedural requirements; and the appellant's role was limited to certifying installation, not the subsequent use of the imported vehicles. Further, because confiscation and penalties previously imposed on the importer and its directors were vacated, imposition of penalty on the engineer could not be sustained. The impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.