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, setting aside the ex parte Order-in-Original on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that non-supply of relied-upon seized documents, despite repeated written requests, denied the assessee effective opportunity to contest the show cause notice. It further found that the demand of Rs. 16,65,594/- was based solely on private rough estimate books without verification of manufacture, transport, receipt of goods by alleged customers, or flow of consideration. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalties on the assessee were quashed. Penalties imposed on the Director and Supervisor under Rule 26 were also set aside for lack of evidence of their involvement.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the ex parte Order-in-Original on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that non-supply of relied-upon seized documents, despite repeated written requests, denied the assessee effective opportunity to contest the show cause notice. It further found that the demand of Rs. 16,65,594/- was based solely on private rough estimate books without verification of manufacture, transport, receipt of goods by alleged customers, or flow of consideration. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalties on the assessee were quashed. Penalties imposed on the Director and Supervisor under Rule 26 were also set aside for lack of evidence of their involvement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.