Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Misdeclaration of an imported vehicle in description, origin, value and seating capacity attracted confiscation, redemption fine, duty and penalty under a scheme operating in distinct fields. The Court held that re-export after payment of redemption fine did not extinguish the importer's separate liability to duty, appropriation and other consequences flowing from improper import; Section 125(2) preserves liability to duty and charges in addition to redemption fine. It also upheld penalty for knowingly using false or incorrect documents, finding that Section 114AA covers making, signing or using materially false declarations and does not require a separate allegation that the importer personally caused falsification. The Tribunal's contrary view was set aside.
Misdeclaration of an imported vehicle in description, origin, value and seating capacity attracted confiscation, redemption fine, duty and penalty under a scheme operating in distinct fields. The Court held that re-export after payment of redemption fine did not extinguish the importer's separate liability to duty, appropriation and other consequences flowing from improper import; Section 125(2) preserves liability to duty and charges in addition to redemption fine. It also upheld penalty for knowingly using false or incorrect documents, finding that Section 114AA covers making, signing or using materially false declarations and does not require a separate allegation that the importer personally caused falsification. The Tribunal's contrary view was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
