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" ?
Breach of an import undertaking under Condition No.104 (Serial No.347B) for a helicopter -- demonstrated by predominant private, unpaid use -- supports confiscation and recovery by recourse to the undertaking despite references to section 28. The tribunal upheld confiscation because the exemption condition was substantially violated. Penalties under section 112 were quashed for two officers because the impugned order did not establish their knowledge or mens rea that unpaid private use would violate the exemption; absence of culpable knowledge defeated individual penalty liability and the department's appeal against penalty enhancement was dismissed.
Breach of an import undertaking under Condition No.104 (Serial No.347B) for a helicopter -- demonstrated by predominant private, unpaid use -- supports confiscation and recovery by recourse to the undertaking despite references to section 28. The tribunal upheld confiscation because the exemption condition was substantially violated. Penalties under section 112 were quashed for two officers because the impugned order did not establish their knowledge or mens rea that unpaid private use would violate the exemption; absence of culpable knowledge defeated individual penalty liability and the department's appeal against penalty enhancement was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.