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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Statements recorded under inquiry summons are admissible only if...
Admissibility of inquiry statements: such statements require formal examination and admission before the adjudicating authority, or they are inadmissible.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Statements recorded under inquiry summons are admissible only if the witness is examined before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion to admit them; failure to follow the mandatory procedure for admitting inquiry statements under the Customs/central excise regime renders such statements inadmissible. Consequently, penalty for alleged abetment under the Customs penalty provision could not be sustained where the impugned order relied solely on section 108 statements without complying with the statutory admission and cross examination safeguards, and the penalty was set aside.
Statements recorded under inquiry summons are admissible only if the witness is examined before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion to admit them; failure to follow the mandatory procedure for admitting inquiry statements under the Customs/central excise regime renders such statements inadmissible. Consequently, penalty for alleged abetment under the Customs penalty provision could not be sustained where the impugned order relied solely on section 108 statements without complying with the statutory admission and cross examination safeguards, and the penalty was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.