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" ?
Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the department did not examine the makers as witnesses, failing the mandatory conditions of s.138B(1)(b); consequently, adjudication and penalty proceedings could not be sustained on such statements, and denial of cross-examination violated the "reasonable opportunity" under s.122A. The contention that absence of s.108 statements bars noticees from objecting was rejected as the statute creates no adverse inference for non-recording; the issue was answered against the revenue. Other framed questions were rendered unnecessary, and the appeals were dismissed. - HC
Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the department did not examine the makers as witnesses, failing the mandatory conditions of s.138B(1)(b); consequently, adjudication and penalty proceedings could not be sustained on such statements, and denial of cross-examination violated the "reasonable opportunity" under s.122A. The contention that absence of s.108 statements bars noticees from objecting was rejected as the statute creates no adverse inference for non-recording; the issue was answered against the revenue. Other framed questions were rendered unnecessary, and the appeals were dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.