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 set aside the order-in-original enhancing assessable value and demanding differential customs duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. It held that the department failed to discharge the burden of proving under-valuation, having relied only on comparison with prices of other importers' consignments from different suppliers without cogent evidence of extra consideration or parallel invoices. The Tribunal further held that export documents from Uzbekistan relied upon by the department were neither supplied to the importer nor shown to be reliable, and the unsigned commercial invoice had no evidentiary value. Statements recorded under s.108 CA, 1962 were held inadmissible for non-compliance with s.138B, vitiating findings based on them.
CESTAT set aside the order-in-original enhancing assessable value and demanding differential customs duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. It held that the department failed to discharge the burden of proving under-valuation, having relied only on comparison with prices of other importers' consignments from different suppliers without cogent evidence of extra consideration or parallel invoices. The Tribunal further held that export documents from Uzbekistan relied upon by the department were neither supplied to the importer nor shown to be reliable, and the unsigned commercial invoice had no evidentiary value. Statements recorded under s.108 CA, 1962 were held inadmissible for non-compliance with s.138B, vitiating findings based on them.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.