Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In transfer pricing benchmarking for SWD and captive ITeS services, comparables were excluded where functional dissimilarity, significant intangibles and brand value, unreliable segmental data, RPT failures, extraordinary events, abnormal margins and high turnover undermined comparability; high receivables alone was not treated as enough to reject an otherwise functionally similar company. Akshay Software Technologies was remanded for fresh FAR verification because service descriptions alone cannot justify exclusion, while negative working capital adjustment was held impermissible for a captive cost-plus service provider not bearing such risk. The specific claims for Sasken Communication Technologies and Informed Technologies India were also restored for fresh examination, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
In transfer pricing benchmarking for SWD and captive ITeS services, comparables were excluded where functional dissimilarity, significant intangibles and brand value, unreliable segmental data, RPT failures, extraordinary events, abnormal margins and high turnover undermined comparability; high receivables alone was not treated as enough to reject an otherwise functionally similar company. Akshay Software Technologies was remanded for fresh FAR verification because service descriptions alone cannot justify exclusion, while negative working capital adjustment was held impermissible for a captive cost-plus service provider not bearing such risk. The specific claims for Sasken Communication Technologies and Informed Technologies India were also restored for fresh examination, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.