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" ?
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
