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" ?
A customs broker's penalty under the residuary provision was set aside because its role was limited to filing Bills of Entry on importer-supplied information, with no proof that it advised or was responsible for the incorrect tariff classification. The Tribunal held that the statutory duty to make a truthful declaration lay on the importer, and unproven allegations of CBLR violations could not sustain liability under Section 117. It also held that post-resolution show cause notices could not survive once the importers' resolution plan had been approved, as pre-resolution claims not included in the plan stood extinguished under insolvency law. The consequential demands were therefore unsustainable.
A customs broker's penalty under the residuary provision was set aside because its role was limited to filing Bills of Entry on importer-supplied information, with no proof that it advised or was responsible for the incorrect tariff classification. The Tribunal held that the statutory duty to make a truthful declaration lay on the importer, and unproven allegations of CBLR violations could not sustain liability under Section 117. It also held that post-resolution show cause notices could not survive once the importers' resolution plan had been approved, as pre-resolution claims not included in the plan stood extinguished under insolvency law. The consequential demands were therefore unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.