Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 
