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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT dismissed the customs appeals filed by the appellant challenging reassessment of bills of entry under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted repeated non-appearance of the appellant/counsel and held that, in view of Section 129D(1A), no justification existed for granting adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three, relying on SC precedent deprecating mechanical adjournments. On merits, following the jurisdictional HC ruling in a similar matter, CESTAT held that the appellant had unequivocally accepted the reassessment in writing, leaving no occasion for a further speaking order. The appeals were therefore dismissed both for non-prosecution and on merits.
CESTAT dismissed the customs appeals filed by the appellant challenging reassessment of bills of entry under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted repeated non-appearance of the appellant/counsel and held that, in view of Section 129D(1A), no justification existed for granting adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three, relying on SC precedent deprecating mechanical adjournments. On merits, following the jurisdictional HC ruling in a similar matter, CESTAT held that the appellant had unequivocally accepted the reassessment in writing, leaving no occasion for a further speaking order. The appeals were therefore dismissed both for non-prosecution and on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
