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" ?
Penalty under sections 112(a) and 114AA for alleged abetment in overvaluation of imported goods to evade anti-dumping duty was held unsustainable because the imports were effected through High Sea Sales on the basis of agreements and banking-channel payments, and the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the department's premise of a lower supplier price. Reliance on statements recorded under section 108, without permitting requested cross-examination, did not justify sustaining the allegation of intentional misdeclaration. Following binding tribunal precedent, the foundation for invoking extended limitation and penal consequences failed, resulting in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. - CESTAT
Penalty under sections 112(a) and 114AA for alleged abetment in overvaluation of imported goods to evade anti-dumping duty was held unsustainable because the imports were effected through High Sea Sales on the basis of agreements and banking-channel payments, and the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the department's premise of a lower supplier price. Reliance on statements recorded under section 108, without permitting requested cross-examination, did not justify sustaining the allegation of intentional misdeclaration. Following binding tribunal precedent, the foundation for invoking extended limitation and penal consequences failed, resulting in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.