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 filed by the anonymized Customs Broker firm and its G-card holder, setting aside penalties imposed under Ss. 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish any collusion or knowledge on their part regarding the mis-declaration and concealment of tyres, which were detected only upon 100% examination. It was found that the appellants had duly complied with KYC requirements, having verified all relevant importer documents, and no evidence showed intentional false statements or submission of incorrect documents. The Tribunal further held that any alleged breach of CBLR, 2018 must be addressed in separate licensing proceedings, and in the absence of a proved Customs offence, no penalty under the Act was legally sustainable.
The CESTAT allowed the appeals filed by the anonymized Customs Broker firm and its G-card holder, setting aside penalties imposed under Ss. 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish any collusion or knowledge on their part regarding the mis-declaration and concealment of tyres, which were detected only upon 100% examination. It was found that the appellants had duly complied with KYC requirements, having verified all relevant importer documents, and no evidence showed intentional false statements or submission of incorrect documents. The Tribunal further held that any alleged breach of CBLR, 2018 must be addressed in separate licensing proceedings, and in the absence of a proved Customs offence, no penalty under the Act was legally sustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
