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" ?
Whether penalty under s.13(1) FEMA for contravention relating to export proceeds/undervaluation should be enhanced up to three times was rejected because the provision prescribes only a maximum ceiling and no minimum or fixed penalty, leaving quantum to the adjudicating authority's judicious discretion based on facts and evidence. The adjudication order contained detailed, reasoned findings evaluating the record, and there is no statutory mandate to impose the maximum penalty merely because it is permissible. Consequently, the request for enhancement failed and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
Whether penalty under s.13(1) FEMA for contravention relating to export proceeds/undervaluation should be enhanced up to three times was rejected because the provision prescribes only a maximum ceiling and no minimum or fixed penalty, leaving quantum to the adjudicating authority's judicious discretion based on facts and evidence. The adjudication order contained detailed, reasoned findings evaluating the record, and there is no statutory mandate to impose the maximum penalty merely because it is permissible. Consequently, the request for enhancement failed and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.