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, holding that the seized foreign currency is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the onus lies upon the Revenue to prove that the currency was not obtained from authorized sources. The Tribunal found no evidence of smuggling, recognized the appellant's legitimate means of income (former academic and subsequent US employment), and concluded that absolute confiscation and penal measures were not warranted. The AIU officer was held to lack jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency matter. Consequently, confiscation and penalty were set aside and the seized currency must be returned absent affirmative proof by the Revenue to the contrary.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the seized foreign currency is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the onus lies upon the Revenue to prove that the currency was not obtained from authorized sources. The Tribunal found no evidence of smuggling, recognized the appellant's legitimate means of income (former academic and subsequent US employment), and concluded that absolute confiscation and penal measures were not warranted. The AIU officer was held to lack jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency matter. Consequently, confiscation and penalty were set aside and the seized currency must be returned absent affirmative proof by the Revenue to the contrary.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.