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 upheld the order of the Commr (Appeals) setting aside the late filing charges imposed on the importer. The respondent had filed four advance Bills of Entry on 01.12.2021 which did not appear in the ICEGATE system due to a systemic error; CESTAT held the respondent could not be held liable for consequences arising from such technical failure. It was further noted that any alleged delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, for which the limitation period stood excluded, and therefore could not be attributed to the respondent. CESTAT found no infirmity in the absence of a speaking order under S.17(5) of the Customs Act or in the reasoning of the Commr (Appeals). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT upheld the order of the Commr (Appeals) setting aside the late filing charges imposed on the importer. The respondent had filed four advance Bills of Entry on 01.12.2021 which did not appear in the ICEGATE system due to a systemic error; CESTAT held the respondent could not be held liable for consequences arising from such technical failure. It was further noted that any alleged delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, for which the limitation period stood excluded, and therefore could not be attributed to the respondent. CESTAT found no infirmity in the absence of a speaking order under S.17(5) of the Customs Act or in the reasoning of the Commr (Appeals). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
