Section 10A and related deductions: Tribunal rejects separate-undertaking claim, but allows loss set-off, ESOP cost and foreign tax credit in principl...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4201 to 4220 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Complete knee, hip and shoulder replacement systems were classified as artificial joints, while separately imported stem and acetabular components were classified as other artificial parts of the body. The claim that they were orthopaedic appliances failed because Heading 9021 and the HSN distinguish support devices from replacement prostheses. Exemption under Sr. No. 385 of Notification No. 45/2025-Cus was denied: Entry B(1) applies only to orthopaedic appliances, and Entry E(9) requires implants for severely physically handicapped patients. The applicant did not show that these general-use implants met that narrower description, so strict construction of the exemption defeated the claim.
Complete knee, hip and shoulder replacement systems were classified as artificial joints, while separately imported stem and acetabular components were classified as other artificial parts of the body. The claim that they were orthopaedic appliances failed because Heading 9021 and the HSN distinguish support devices from replacement prostheses. Exemption under Sr. No. 385 of Notification No. 45/2025-Cus was denied: Entry B(1) applies only to orthopaedic appliances, and Entry E(9) requires implants for severely physically handicapped patients. The applicant did not show that these general-use implants met that narrower description, so strict construction of the exemption defeated the claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
