Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Benefit of abatement under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Determination of Capacity and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - whether the appellant could suo motu claim abatement - Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was justified in claiming suo motu rebate under rule 10 of the 2010 Rules. - AT
Benefit of abatement under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Determination of Capacity and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - whether the appellant could suo motu claim abatement - Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was justified in claiming suo motu rebate under rule 10 of the 2010 Rules. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.