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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.