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 upheld rejection of the declared value and classification of imported quilted bed spreads, relying on the appellant's admitted misdeclaration, misclassification and undervaluation. The goods were rightly held liable to confiscation under s.111(m) read with s.118 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, considering that the Bills of Entry were filed on the basis of documents received from the foreign supplier and there was no allegation of manipulation of documents by the appellant, the penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The redemption fine was found excessive and reduced from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs. Appeal partly allowed.
CESTAT upheld rejection of the declared value and classification of imported quilted bed spreads, relying on the appellant's admitted misdeclaration, misclassification and undervaluation. The goods were rightly held liable to confiscation under s.111(m) read with s.118 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, considering that the Bills of Entry were filed on the basis of documents received from the foreign supplier and there was no allegation of manipulation of documents by the appellant, the penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The redemption fine was found excessive and reduced from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs. Appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.