AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.
Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
