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 dismissed the appeal, upholding confiscation and imposition of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found undisputed mis-declaration of export goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under section 124, and held the Additional Director, DRI, competent to issue the show-cause notice in these proceedings; the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant concerned issuance of notices under section 28 for duty demand and was in any event subsequently reviewed. The appellant's contention of mere ministerial filing of shipping bills was rejected because the bills were benami and filed at the behest of a third party, attracting primary culpability. A separate penalty under CBLR does not preclude imposition under section 114(iii).
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding confiscation and imposition of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found undisputed mis-declaration of export goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under section 124, and held the Additional Director, DRI, competent to issue the show-cause notice in these proceedings; the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant concerned issuance of notices under section 28 for duty demand and was in any event subsequently reviewed. The appellant's contention of mere ministerial filing of shipping bills was rejected because the bills were benami and filed at the behest of a third party, attracting primary culpability. A separate penalty under CBLR does not preclude imposition under section 114(iii).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
