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 allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as transferee of validly issued Gold Replenishment Licences, was not liable to customs duty or confiscation merely because the original licences may have been procured through fraud by others. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Tribunal held that where the licensing authority has actually issued licences and they are not forged, exemption cannot be denied to either the original holder or bona fide purchaser during the licence validity. The Tribunal further held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as evidence since the mandatory procedure under section 138B, including examination and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as transferee of validly issued Gold Replenishment Licences, was not liable to customs duty or confiscation merely because the original licences may have been procured through fraud by others. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Tribunal held that where the licensing authority has actually issued licences and they are not forged, exemption cannot be denied to either the original holder or bona fide purchaser during the licence validity. The Tribunal further held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as evidence since the mandatory procedure under section 138B, including examination and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.