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 appellant provided sufficient evidence regarding the value and there was no dispute that the appellant had paid anything over and above the declared value while procuring the goods. The Apex Court held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. Despite submitting sufficient evidence, the adjudicating authority rejected the declared value on the ground of absence of actual High Sea Sale value and included 2% notional value for assessment. As per Circular No. 32/2004, the actual High Sea Sale contract price paid by the last buyer would be construed as the transaction value u/r 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and inclusion of commission on a notional basis may not be appropriate. The transaction value to be considered is the transaction between the high seas supplier and the appellant, which clearly shows the consideration for the goods as declared by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is sustainable and allowed.
The appellant provided sufficient evidence regarding the value and there was no dispute that the appellant had paid anything over and above the declared value while procuring the goods. The Apex Court held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. Despite submitting sufficient evidence, the adjudicating authority rejected the declared value on the ground of absence of actual High Sea Sale value and included 2% notional value for assessment. As per Circular No. 32/2004, the actual High Sea Sale contract price paid by the last buyer would be construed as the transaction value u/r 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and inclusion of commission on a notional basis may not be appropriate. The transaction value to be considered is the transaction between the high seas supplier and the appellant, which clearly shows the consideration for the goods as declared by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is sustainable and allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.