Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a dispute over the classification of "KARA" brand wet wipes under two different tariff items. The issue of time limitation was raised, with the appellant arguing that there was no suppression of facts as they had declared the classification and exemption notification for their product. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no intent to evade duty and no suppression of facts. The demand for the extended period was set aside, and the penalty for the normal period was also waived. The appellant was directed to file a refund application for the excess amount paid, which would be adjusted against the re-quantified demand. The decision was supported by relevant case law, including a Supreme Court ruling. The appeal was allowed in part.
The case involved a dispute over the classification of "KARA" brand wet wipes under two different tariff items. The issue of time limitation was raised, with the appellant arguing that there was no suppression of facts as they had declared the classification and exemption notification for their product. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no intent to evade duty and no suppression of facts. The demand for the extended period was set aside, and the penalty for the normal period was also waived. The appellant was directed to file a refund application for the excess amount paid, which would be adjusted against the re-quantified demand. The decision was supported by relevant case law, including a Supreme Court ruling. The appeal was allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
