Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Strict interpretation of exemption notifications required the imported camera modules to satisfy both the tariff classification and the descriptive condition in Notification No. 11/2018-Cus. Although classification under tariff item 85258020 was not disputed, the modules were only parts of mobile phones in their imported condition and lacked the features of an independently functioning digital still image video camera. The Tribunal held that assembly into a phone could not convert the parts into the exempted product, and that a separate withdrawal of BCD relief did not establish equivalence. The exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge was therefore denied, and the demand, extended period, penalty, and confiscation were sustained.
Strict interpretation of exemption notifications required the imported camera modules to satisfy both the tariff classification and the descriptive condition in Notification No. 11/2018-Cus. Although classification under tariff item 85258020 was not disputed, the modules were only parts of mobile phones in their imported condition and lacked the features of an independently functioning digital still image video camera. The Tribunal held that assembly into a phone could not convert the parts into the exempted product, and that a separate withdrawal of BCD relief did not establish equivalence. The exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge was therefore denied, and the demand, extended period, penalty, and confiscation were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.