Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The case pertains to the valuation of imported porcelain vitrified tiles. The key points are: The assessment attained finality, but the appellant has the legal right to challenge the assessment order u/s 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV. The NIDB (National Import Database) data cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the declared value. Comparing goods imported by different importers is unjustified. The adjudication authority acknowledged that the goods are not branded, and identical goods are unavailable for comparison. The impugned order lacks admissible evidence to reject the transaction value. Details of other imports were not furnished, and there is no mention of the lowest value among contemporaneous imports to ascertain if such imports can reject the declared value. The value enhancement was made without following the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Therefore, the declared value must be adopted for assessment. The appeal was allowed.
The case pertains to the valuation of imported porcelain vitrified tiles. The key points are: The assessment attained finality, but the appellant has the legal right to challenge the assessment order u/s 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV. The NIDB (National Import Database) data cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the declared value. Comparing goods imported by different importers is unjustified. The adjudication authority acknowledged that the goods are not branded, and identical goods are unavailable for comparison. The impugned order lacks admissible evidence to reject the transaction value. Details of other imports were not furnished, and there is no mention of the lowest value among contemporaneous imports to ascertain if such imports can reject the declared value. The value enhancement was made without following the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Therefore, the declared value must be adopted for assessment. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
