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 and set aside the penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act. It held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be treated as relevant evidence since the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the finding that the appellant was the owner of the seized 12 gold bars was unsustainable, section 123 could not be invoked, and the gold bars were not liable to confiscation under s. 111. The Tribunal further held that the confiscation of seized currency and gold jewellery/ornaments was based on presumptions and was unsustainable, and criticisms regarding absence of e-way bills were legally untenable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act. It held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be treated as relevant evidence since the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the finding that the appellant was the owner of the seized 12 gold bars was unsustainable, section 123 could not be invoked, and the gold bars were not liable to confiscation under s. 111. The Tribunal further held that the confiscation of seized currency and gold jewellery/ornaments was based on presumptions and was unsustainable, and criticisms regarding absence of e-way bills were legally untenable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.