Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
In transfer pricing comparability analysis for a manufacturing segment, the ITAT treated the Safe Harbour definitions of core and non-core auto components as a guiding aid for FAR analysis even though the assessee had not opted for Safe Harbour Rules. Because the assessee manufactured shock absorbers in the core auto component segment, only functionally similar comparables were acceptable. Helmet and accessory manufacturers, Eicher Motors, and Special Engineering Services were excluded for functional dissimilarity; Nifco was also excluded because its related party transactions exceeded 25%, despite otherwise being in the automotive component space.
In transfer pricing comparability analysis for a manufacturing segment, the ITAT treated the Safe Harbour definitions of core and non-core auto components as a guiding aid for FAR analysis even though the assessee had not opted for Safe Harbour Rules. Because the assessee manufactured shock absorbers in the core auto component segment, only functionally similar comparables were acceptable. Helmet and accessory manufacturers, Eicher Motors, and Special Engineering Services were excluded for functional dissimilarity; Nifco was also excluded because its related party transactions exceeded 25%, despite otherwise being in the automotive component space.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.