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 original orders and quashed the demand for differential duty, interest, penalties and confiscation. The Tribunal held the revenue failed to rebut the declared transaction value or establish undervaluation by admissible evidence or comparable import data, reliance on insurance/proforma documents and retracted statements being inadequate; procedural and evidential lacunae in the SCN rendered the valuation exercise unsustainable. Findings of joint liability under Section 147 were not tenable in the absence of proof of agency or controversion of contemporaneous import evidence. In consequence, the adjudication and consequent recovery/penalty directions were annulled and the appellants discharged.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned original orders and quashed the demand for differential duty, interest, penalties and confiscation. The Tribunal held the revenue failed to rebut the declared transaction value or establish undervaluation by admissible evidence or comparable import data, reliance on insurance/proforma documents and retracted statements being inadequate; procedural and evidential lacunae in the SCN rendered the valuation exercise unsustainable. Findings of joint liability under Section 147 were not tenable in the absence of proof of agency or controversion of contemporaneous import evidence. In consequence, the adjudication and consequent recovery/penalty directions were annulled and the appellants discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.