Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the proviso excluding appellate jurisdiction for orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage must be construed strictly. Because the appellant was intercepted before entering the Customs clearance area and the dispute did not arise from baggage declaration, assessment or examination, the matter was not directly and substantially a baggage case. The real controversy concerned seizure and confiscation of foreign currency for alleged FEMA or Customs violations. Currency and baggage were treated as distinct, so seizure of currency did not by itself attract the baggage bar. The preliminary objection was rejected and the appeal was held maintainable for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the proviso excluding appellate jurisdiction for orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage must be construed strictly. Because the appellant was intercepted before entering the Customs clearance area and the dispute did not arise from baggage declaration, assessment or examination, the matter was not directly and substantially a baggage case. The real controversy concerned seizure and confiscation of foreign currency for alleged FEMA or Customs violations. Currency and baggage were treated as distinct, so seizure of currency did not by itself attract the baggage bar. The preliminary objection was rejected and the appeal was held maintainable for hearing on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.