Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether mobile phones seized for invoice mismatch and regulatory non-compliance were liable to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority correctly treated 3,998 phones as smuggled since the invoices relied on by the importer did not match the documents filed with the Bill of Entry, warranting confiscation; 2,886 phones were properly allowed redemption on fine, and 1,012 phones were rightly subjected to absolute confiscation because import without valid IMEI numbers is prohibited. Separately, absence of MRP/RSP stickers breached FTP requirements and section 4A compliance, justifying confiscation of the 2,886 phones. Penalties imposed on the importing entity and its responsible persons were upheld as proportionate, and the appeals were dismissed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether mobile phones seized for invoice mismatch and regulatory non-compliance were liable to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority correctly treated 3,998 phones as smuggled since the invoices relied on by the importer did not match the documents filed with the Bill of Entry, warranting confiscation; 2,886 phones were properly allowed redemption on fine, and 1,012 phones were rightly subjected to absolute confiscation because import without valid IMEI numbers is prohibited. Separately, absence of MRP/RSP stickers breached FTP requirements and section 4A compliance, justifying confiscation of the 2,886 phones. Penalties imposed on the importing entity and its responsible persons were upheld as proportionate, and the appeals were dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
