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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
