Capital character of assignment consideration prevents taxation as residuary income, while unsupported interest-related expenditure remains non-deduct...
Make-available condition shields regional support-service receipts from Indian taxation where no independent capability or permanent establishment exi...
Transfer-pricing treatment of corporate guarantees and convertible loans followed prior-year consistency, with taxable foreign dividends excluded from...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking confines adjustments to associated-enterprise transactions and integrates delayed receivables through TNMM working-capit...
Medical relief status protects government-contracted mobile healthcare from commercial classification, while provisional registration cancellation req...
Charitable registration cancellation requires proof that educational activities abandoned their objects; incidental receipts and retained surplus are ...
Prospective customs notification amendments cannot bar provisional release consideration for earlier imports when bills of lading predate their commen...
Refund of SAD - The case involved refund claims filed by the appellant under Customs Notification No.102/2007-Cus. for Special Additional Duty of Customs paid during the import of goods. While a part of the refund claim was sanctioned, the original authority rejected the claim for two Bills of Entry, citing discrepancies between invoice dates and dates of Bill of Entry. The appellant contended that the rejection was based on unfounded assumptions by the department, clarifying that goods were intended for delivery at Sivakasi and were transported directly from Chennai to Sivakasi. The Tribunal found the rejection erroneous, emphasizing that an importer can arrange for direct delivery to the customer from the port.
Refund of SAD - The case involved refund claims filed by the appellant under Customs Notification No.102/2007-Cus. for Special Additional Duty of Customs paid during the import of goods. While a part of the refund claim was sanctioned, the original authority rejected the claim for two Bills of Entry, citing discrepancies between invoice dates and dates of Bill of Entry. The appellant contended that the rejection was based on unfounded assumptions by the department, clarifying that goods were intended for delivery at Sivakasi and were transported directly from Chennai to Sivakasi. The Tribunal found the rejection erroneous, emphasizing that an importer can arrange for direct delivery to the customer from the port.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4910 
