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 pertains to the determination of whether the process undertaken by the appellant, a job worker, amounts to manufacture and the consequent duty liability. It was held that the process of populating PCBs by the appellant constituted manufacture as it transformed the raw materials into a new and distinct product. Regarding duty liability, it was ruled that the appellant, being the job worker, was rightly demanded duty since the conditions for clearance on a principal-to-principal basis were not satisfied. However, the demand was limited to the normal period due to the delay in issuing the show cause notice. The appellant's claim of exemption or duty payment by the raw material suppliers was remanded for verification of supporting documents. Penalties were set aside, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification of demand based on the observations made.
The case pertains to the determination of whether the process undertaken by the appellant, a job worker, amounts to manufacture and the consequent duty liability. It was held that the process of populating PCBs by the appellant constituted manufacture as it transformed the raw materials into a new and distinct product. Regarding duty liability, it was ruled that the appellant, being the job worker, was rightly demanded duty since the conditions for clearance on a principal-to-principal basis were not satisfied. However, the demand was limited to the normal period due to the delay in issuing the show cause notice. The appellant's claim of exemption or duty payment by the raw material suppliers was remanded for verification of supporting documents. Penalties were set aside, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification of demand based on the observations made.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.