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 of the importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer-appellant and set aside the demand of customs duty raised on imports made using transferred DFIA licences. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is permissible only in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. As the SCN contained no such specific allegation or supporting evidence against the appellant, the extended period could not be applied. Relying on precedent distinguishing void and voidable licences, CESTAT found the impugned order unsustainable and quashed the duty demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.