Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - profit attribution of a fixed place PE and the DAPE - Erroneous but not prejudicial to revenue order - Even if that computation of profit attribution, on the basis of the two taxpayer approach, is erroneous, in view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision, it cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless there is a categorical finding that the payment to the dependent agent is not an arm’s length price vis-à-vis functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the dependent agent. - AT
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - profit attribution of a fixed place PE and the DAPE - Erroneous but not prejudicial to revenue order - Even if that computation of profit attribution, on the basis of the two taxpayer approach, is erroneous, in view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision, it cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless there is a categorical finding that the payment to the dependent agent is not an arm’s length price vis-à-vis functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the dependent agent. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
