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 and set aside the impugned order insofar as it ordered absolute confiscation of the seized firecrackers and imposed penalties on the appellants. The Bench held that the seizure was a town seizure within India, the goods were not notified under S.123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the burden of proving foreign, smuggled origin squarely rested on Revenue. Revenue failed to adduce cogent evidence of Chinese origin, conducted no effective follow-up investigation, and did not make the godown owner a noticee. Denial of cross-examination under S.108 further violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the proceedings were held unsustainable and all penalties on the anonymized appellants were vacated.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order insofar as it ordered absolute confiscation of the seized firecrackers and imposed penalties on the appellants. The Bench held that the seizure was a town seizure within India, the goods were not notified under S.123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the burden of proving foreign, smuggled origin squarely rested on Revenue. Revenue failed to adduce cogent evidence of Chinese origin, conducted no effective follow-up investigation, and did not make the godown owner a noticee. Denial of cross-examination under S.108 further violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the proceedings were held unsustainable and all penalties on the anonymized appellants were vacated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.