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 allowed the appeals of A1, A2 and A3, setting aside confiscation of 227 bags of betel nuts and all penalties under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bench held that, since betel nuts are not notified under s.123, the burden of proving smuggled/foreign origin rested on the department, which failed to adduce any cogent evidence of illegal import or foreign origin. The vehicle was intercepted in the domestic area with valid transport documents, and all statements consistently indicated Indian/local origin of the goods. The Tribunal held that an incorrect consignee address in transport bills, by itself, cannot justify a finding of smuggling. Consequently, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were found unsustainable and were fully annulled.
The CESTAT allowed the appeals of A1, A2 and A3, setting aside confiscation of 227 bags of betel nuts and all penalties under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bench held that, since betel nuts are not notified under s.123, the burden of proving smuggled/foreign origin rested on the department, which failed to adduce any cogent evidence of illegal import or foreign origin. The vehicle was intercepted in the domestic area with valid transport documents, and all statements consistently indicated Indian/local origin of the goods. The Tribunal held that an incorrect consignee address in transport bills, by itself, cannot justify a finding of smuggling. Consequently, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were found unsustainable and were fully annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.