Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Equalisation levy was held inapplicable to reimbursement paid by an Indian petitioner to its overseas subsidiary for online advertising services obtained from Google USA, because the charging provisions in Sections 164 and 165 of the Finance Act, 2016 apply only to consideration for a specified service received or receivable by a non-resident from a resident in India or from a non-resident with a permanent establishment in India. The Court declined to expand the levy by inference or substance-over-form reasoning, and held that reimbursement was not part of the statutory definition. It further held that the corporate veil could not be pierced absent evidence of impropriety or a sham structure, and that survey statements had no independent probative value to fasten liability.
Equalisation levy was held inapplicable to reimbursement paid by an Indian petitioner to its overseas subsidiary for online advertising services obtained from Google USA, because the charging provisions in Sections 164 and 165 of the Finance Act, 2016 apply only to consideration for a specified service received or receivable by a non-resident from a resident in India or from a non-resident with a permanent establishment in India. The Court declined to expand the levy by inference or substance-over-form reasoning, and held that reimbursement was not part of the statutory definition. It further held that the corporate veil could not be pierced absent evidence of impropriety or a sham structure, and that survey statements had no independent probative value to fasten liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
