Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
The High Court considered a case involving the release of seized goods u/s 110A. The issue was the non-issuance of a show cause notice within the stipulated time due to valuation and duty discrepancies of imported cutting blades. The Court held that a Circular from 2017 was superseded by a 2018 amendment exempting cases with provisional release from the time limit for issuing show cause notices. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Two conditions were imposed for provisional release: execution of a bond and a bank guarantee. The Court affirmed the bond condition but directed the respondent to provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- and a bond for Rs. 40,00,000/- to protect revenue interests. Upon compliance with the conditions, the seized goods would be provisionally released within 10 days. The appeal was disposed of, and the application closed.
The High Court considered a case involving the release of seized goods u/s 110A. The issue was the non-issuance of a show cause notice within the stipulated time due to valuation and duty discrepancies of imported cutting blades. The Court held that a Circular from 2017 was superseded by a 2018 amendment exempting cases with provisional release from the time limit for issuing show cause notices. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Two conditions were imposed for provisional release: execution of a bond and a bank guarantee. The Court affirmed the bond condition but directed the respondent to provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- and a bond for Rs. 40,00,000/- to protect revenue interests. Upon compliance with the conditions, the seized goods would be provisionally released within 10 days. The appeal was disposed of, and the application closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
