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 appeal of the Customs Cargo Service Provider, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order directing recovery of outstanding cost recovery charges and imposition of penalty under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Applying its earlier precedent in a similar matter, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked authority to order recovery of cost recovery charges under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o). As recovery of such charges was not sustainable under these provisions, there was no contravention of the Regulations, and consequently the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also unsustainable.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of the Customs Cargo Service Provider, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order directing recovery of outstanding cost recovery charges and imposition of penalty under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Applying its earlier precedent in a similar matter, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked authority to order recovery of cost recovery charges under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o). As recovery of such charges was not sustainable under these provisions, there was no contravention of the Regulations, and consequently the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.