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" ?
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
