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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.