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 appeals filed by the noticee-appellants and set aside the impugned order in entirety. The T. noted that the same order of the Commissioner, including the enhancement of assessable value by adding alleged differential freight for part-voyage loading, and the resultant duty demands and penalties under Ss. 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, had already been quashed in earlier connected appeals of the main importers. As there is no stay or reversal of that decision by the SC or any HC, judicial discipline required following it. Since confiscation of the goods had already been annulled, no penalty under S. 112(a) or S. 114AA could survive against the present appellants. All penalties were therefore vacated and the appeals were allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals filed by the noticee-appellants and set aside the impugned order in entirety. The T. noted that the same order of the Commissioner, including the enhancement of assessable value by adding alleged differential freight for part-voyage loading, and the resultant duty demands and penalties under Ss. 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, had already been quashed in earlier connected appeals of the main importers. As there is no stay or reversal of that decision by the SC or any HC, judicial discipline required following it. Since confiscation of the goods had already been annulled, no penalty under S. 112(a) or S. 114AA could survive against the present appellants. All penalties were therefore vacated and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.