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" ?
Seizure and confiscation under s.111 turned on whether the goods were licitly imported with valid duty-paying documents or were supported by fabricated invoices amounting to mis-declaration/undervaluation. The adjudicating authority verified the alleged supplier and relied on statements recorded under s.108, which were tested through cross-examination, establishing that the purported invoices were never issued and did not relate to the seized goods; hence the documents failed to prove lawful import or local procurement. Confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 were sustained as the adjudication complied with natural justice and the evidence conclusively supported the department's case, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. - CESTAT
Seizure and confiscation under s.111 turned on whether the goods were licitly imported with valid duty-paying documents or were supported by fabricated invoices amounting to mis-declaration/undervaluation. The adjudicating authority verified the alleged supplier and relied on statements recorded under s.108, which were tested through cross-examination, establishing that the purported invoices were never issued and did not relate to the seized goods; hence the documents failed to prove lawful import or local procurement. Confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 were sustained as the adjudication complied with natural justice and the evidence conclusively supported the department's case, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.