Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Valuation of imported goods under Rule 9 and 10(1)(c) - addition of payment made towards royalty -100% subsidy of foreign supplier - Related party - The CESTAT observed that, the Royalty is not payable in instances of trading of imported finished goods and on goods repacked in India and it is only for use of technology to produce the products in India. - The Tribunal held that, as seen from the Rules the Original Authority has after rejected all other methods has arrived at the loaded value as per Rule 9 which is last in the sequence. The Commissioner having rejected this method of enhancement of value cannot remand the case for redetermination under any other method as it has already attained finality and there is no appeal on that method of valuation. Hence the remand to redetermine is not sustainable and hence set aside.
Valuation of imported goods under Rule 9 and 10(1)(c) - addition of payment made towards royalty -100% subsidy of foreign supplier - Related party - The CESTAT observed that, the Royalty is not payable in instances of trading of imported finished goods and on goods repacked in India and it is only for use of technology to produce the products in India. - The Tribunal held that, as seen from the Rules the Original Authority has after rejected all other methods has arrived at the loaded value as per Rule 9 which is last in the sequence. The Commissioner having rejected this method of enhancement of value cannot remand the case for redetermination under any other method as it has already attained finality and there is no appeal on that method of valuation. Hence the remand to redetermine is not sustainable and hence set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
