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 order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.