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 held that the Appellant was liable to pay customs duty with interest on 230.77 MT of imported crude palm oil and on the balance found short, as the statutory condition for exemption notification was not fulfilled because the goods were not proved to have been used in manufacture of specified final products. The Tribunal found absence of evidence for clandestine removal and insufficient proof of an accounting error; loss by fire did not negate liability for duty and interest. However, penalties under ss.114A, 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act were set aside for lack of evidence of collusion, misdeclaration or other culpable contravention. Appeal partly allowed.
CESTAT held that the Appellant was liable to pay customs duty with interest on 230.77 MT of imported crude palm oil and on the balance found short, as the statutory condition for exemption notification was not fulfilled because the goods were not proved to have been used in manufacture of specified final products. The Tribunal found absence of evidence for clandestine removal and insufficient proof of an accounting error; loss by fire did not negate liability for duty and interest. However, penalties under ss.114A, 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act were set aside for lack of evidence of collusion, misdeclaration or other culpable contravention. Appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.