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" ?
Vicarious liability and supervisory duty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 were considered in relation to employee misconduct; the inquiry officer found the broker not directly responsible, and that finding was accepted, with licence revocation not invoked. Forfeiture of the Rs.75,000 security deposit under regulation 15 was upheld as an operative disciplinary consequence. Imposition of a monetary penalty under regulation 18 was held excessive and reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 on proportionality grounds. The appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the quantum of penalty but otherwise upholding the order.
Vicarious liability and supervisory duty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 were considered in relation to employee misconduct; the inquiry officer found the broker not directly responsible, and that finding was accepted, with licence revocation not invoked. Forfeiture of the Rs.75,000 security deposit under regulation 15 was upheld as an operative disciplinary consequence. Imposition of a monetary penalty under regulation 18 was held excessive and reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 on proportionality grounds. The appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the quantum of penalty but otherwise upholding the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.