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 the classification of a mixture of Melamine Formaldehyde Resin and Cardanol Phenolic Formaldehyde used as Adhesive/Glue/Resin for the manufacture of a final product. The issue was whether it should be classified under Chapter 35-06 as claimed by the appellant or under Chapter 39-09 as alleged by the Department. The Tribunal held that such mixtures used as adhesive/glue/resins for manufacturing laminates are classifiable under Chapter heading 35-06 based on established precedents. It was noted that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of the product, which is essential for determining dutiability. Regarding time limitation, it was held that the demand up to December 2010 was beyond limitation as the facts were known to the Department since 2006. The appeal was allowed as the impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law.
The case involved the classification of a mixture of Melamine Formaldehyde Resin and Cardanol Phenolic Formaldehyde used as Adhesive/Glue/Resin for the manufacture of a final product. The issue was whether it should be classified under Chapter 35-06 as claimed by the appellant or under Chapter 39-09 as alleged by the Department. The Tribunal held that such mixtures used as adhesive/glue/resins for manufacturing laminates are classifiable under Chapter heading 35-06 based on established precedents. It was noted that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of the product, which is essential for determining dutiability. Regarding time limitation, it was held that the demand up to December 2010 was beyond limitation as the facts were known to the Department since 2006. The appeal was allowed as the impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.