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 High Court interpreted Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, focusing on the discretionary use of "may" instead of "shall" regarding provisional release of prohibited goods. The appellant refused provisional release as imported gold meant for export was diverted to the domestic market. The Tribunal can review the appellant's decision but, due to the serious violation, it wasn't justified in releasing the goods provisionally. The Tribunal overlooked Circular No.35/2017, stating prohibited goods cannot be provisionally released. The respondent can deposit the gold's value for provisional release, ensuring compliance with export obligations. The appeal of revenue allowed.
The High Court interpreted Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, focusing on the discretionary use of "may" instead of "shall" regarding provisional release of prohibited goods. The appellant refused provisional release as imported gold meant for export was diverted to the domestic market. The Tribunal can review the appellant's decision but, due to the serious violation, it wasn't justified in releasing the goods provisionally. The Tribunal overlooked Circular No.35/2017, stating prohibited goods cannot be provisionally released. The respondent can deposit the gold's value for provisional release, ensuring compliance with export obligations. The appeal of revenue allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
