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 under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
