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...
Value addition - Duty-free import of gold - Replenishment of gold under the ‘replenishment scheme’ from DIL against export of gold jewellery - The tribunal concluded that the manufacturing process was indeed fully mechanized, dismissing the department's claim of a semi-mechanized process. This determination was crucial as it affected the applicable wastage norms and minimum value addition required under the FTP. - Regarding Value Addition Calculation, the tribunal, referencing FTP provisions and clarifications from the Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), sided with the appellants. It was held that the calculation method adopted by the department was incorrect, and the appellants had indeed met the value addition criteria as per the correct interpretation of FTP guidelines.
Value addition - Duty-free import of gold - Replenishment of gold under the ‘replenishment scheme’ from DIL against export of gold jewellery - The tribunal concluded that the manufacturing process was indeed fully mechanized, dismissing the department's claim of a semi-mechanized process. This determination was crucial as it affected the applicable wastage norms and minimum value addition required under the FTP. - Regarding Value Addition Calculation, the tribunal, referencing FTP provisions and clarifications from the Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), sided with the appellants. It was held that the calculation method adopted by the department was incorrect, and the appellants had indeed met the value addition criteria as per the correct interpretation of FTP guidelines.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.