Head Office cost allocation requires prescribed transfer-pricing methods; treaty ceilings bar surcharge and cess, while duplicate taxation is excluded...
Cost-to-cost reimbursement of seconded employees is not service consideration; transfer-pricing markup was deleted and amalgamation amortisation allow...
Crystallisation of liability supports prior-period expense deduction, while functionally distinct divisions require separate transfer-pricing benchmar...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Page of 4902
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 98021 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Electronic evidence recovered from mobile phones, including...
Mobile-phone electronic evidence failed to establish customs undervaluation, while duty survived on non-authentic origin certificates without importer penalties.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Electronic evidence recovered from mobile phones, including spreadsheets, WhatsApp material and ledger data, could not establish customs undervaluation where it was selectively used, lacked forensic verification and corroboration, and relied on retracted statements without examination. Declared transaction values could not be rejected or residual valuation applied without assessing unrebutted contemporaneous import data and evidence specific to each import; extrapolation was insufficient. Consequently, undervaluation demands and related liabilities failed. Preferential tariff concessions were unavailable for identified consignments supported by certificates of origin not authenticated by the issuing authority, so customs duty and interest remained payable on those consignments. Importers were not liable to penalty absent proof of involvement or collusion in obtaining the non-authentic certificates.
Electronic evidence recovered from mobile phones, including spreadsheets, WhatsApp material and ledger data, could not establish customs undervaluation where it was selectively used, lacked forensic verification and corroboration, and relied on retracted statements without examination. Declared transaction values could not be rejected or residual valuation applied without assessing unrebutted contemporaneous import data and evidence specific to each import; extrapolation was insufficient. Consequently, undervaluation demands and related liabilities failed. Preferential tariff concessions were unavailable for identified consignments supported by certificates of origin not authenticated by the issuing authority, so customs duty and interest remained payable on those consignments. Importers were not liable to penalty absent proof of involvement or collusion in obtaining the non-authentic certificates.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
