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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 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" ?
Sections 92A(1) and 92A(2) require a harmonious reading: the statutory circumstances in section 92A(2), including business dependence under section 92A(2)(g), do not independently establish an associated-enterprise relationship without participation in management, control or capital under section 92A(1). Commercial dependence or distribution exclusivity alone is insufficient absent evidence of ownership, voting rights, managerial participation or financial control. For internal CUP analysis, contractual differences do not disqualify an uncontrolled transaction unless they materially affect the royalty rate and cannot be eliminated through reasonably accurate, objectively verifiable adjustments. Royalty benchmarking was remanded to examine those differences and adjustments; if CUP is unreliable, the most appropriate method must be independently selected.
Sections 92A(1) and 92A(2) require a harmonious reading: the statutory circumstances in section 92A(2), including business dependence under section 92A(2)(g), do not independently establish an associated-enterprise relationship without participation in management, control or capital under section 92A(1). Commercial dependence or distribution exclusivity alone is insufficient absent evidence of ownership, voting rights, managerial participation or financial control. For internal CUP analysis, contractual differences do not disqualify an uncontrolled transaction unless they materially affect the royalty rate and cannot be eliminated through reasonably accurate, objectively verifiable adjustments. Royalty benchmarking was remanded to examine those differences and adjustments; if CUP is unreliable, the most appropriate method must be independently selected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
