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" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
