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" ?
The CESTAT, by majority, allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for consequential orders. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to satisfy statutory conditions of s.36B CEA, 1944 for admissibility of computer-derived evidence: laptops and pen-drives were opened years after seizure, computer printouts were uncertified, and the Director's signatures did not constitute the required certification. Physical and digital evidence must independently meet ss.36A/36B; here the digital material, on which the demand predominantly rested, lacked evidentiary value. Insufficient corroborative evidence and failure to counter production-capacity assertions proved fatal to the Revenue's case.
The CESTAT, by majority, allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for consequential orders. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to satisfy statutory conditions of s.36B CEA, 1944 for admissibility of computer-derived evidence: laptops and pen-drives were opened years after seizure, computer printouts were uncertified, and the Director's signatures did not constitute the required certification. Physical and digital evidence must independently meet ss.36A/36B; here the digital material, on which the demand predominantly rested, lacked evidentiary value. Insufficient corroborative evidence and failure to counter production-capacity assertions proved fatal to the Revenue's case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.