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" ?
Penalties under s.112(b) for consignments imported in the name of non-existent firms were unsustainable because the appellants neither claimed ownership nor was there evidence linking them to those consignments; mere stuffing of multiple importers' LCL cargo in the same container could not fasten liability for another importer's violations, so the related penalties were set aside. Confiscation of goods imported using a lent IEC was also unsustainable since s.119 applies only where goods are used to conceal other goods, and the concerned goods were separate and not concealment devices; consequential penalties were therefore quashed and the confiscation order set aside to that extent, with the appeal allowed - CESTAT
Penalties under s.112(b) for consignments imported in the name of non-existent firms were unsustainable because the appellants neither claimed ownership nor was there evidence linking them to those consignments; mere stuffing of multiple importers' LCL cargo in the same container could not fasten liability for another importer's violations, so the related penalties were set aside. Confiscation of goods imported using a lent IEC was also unsustainable since s.119 applies only where goods are used to conceal other goods, and the concerned goods were separate and not concealment devices; consequential penalties were therefore quashed and the confiscation order set aside to that extent, with the appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.