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 of the customs broker and set aside the impugned order of suspension/revocation of the customs broker licence. The Tribunal held that, under CHLR 2018, the broker's duty is confined to verification of exporter details on the basis of documents such as IEC and PAN, and there was no allegation that these documents were forged or fabricated. CESTAT found no evidence of mens rea, collusion, or failure of due diligence by the broker, and noted that customs officers themselves had examined the goods, issued Let Export Orders, and enabled grant of RoSL. Considering proportionality, the prolonged deprivation of the broker's right to conduct business, and the absence of proof of involvement in the fraudulent rebate claims, CESTAT concluded that penal action was unjustified and directed restoration of the licence, thereby fully exonerating the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the customs broker and set aside the impugned order of suspension/revocation of the customs broker licence. The Tribunal held that, under CHLR 2018, the broker's duty is confined to verification of exporter details on the basis of documents such as IEC and PAN, and there was no allegation that these documents were forged or fabricated. CESTAT found no evidence of mens rea, collusion, or failure of due diligence by the broker, and noted that customs officers themselves had examined the goods, issued Let Export Orders, and enabled grant of RoSL. Considering proportionality, the prolonged deprivation of the broker's right to conduct business, and the absence of proof of involvement in the fraudulent rebate claims, CESTAT concluded that penal action was unjustified and directed restoration of the licence, thereby fully exonerating the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
