Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 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 revolves around the rejection of the declared value by customs authorities and the subsequent enhancement of value based on a quotation obtained from a different supplier. The key points are: The original authority rejected the declared value and determined the value based on a quotation from another supplier, which was accepted by the importer. However, the Tribunal held that a proforma invoice or quotation cannot constitute a valid basis for enhancing the value of imported goods, as per the precedent set in the Sahara Enterprises case. The transaction value accepted by another importer in a different case cannot be the basis for valuation in the present case, where there is no such consent from the importer. Transaction value is a function of price, but there was no evidence of any flow back or additional payment by the importer over the declared transaction value. The Revenue failed to prove its case, and the impugned order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
The case revolves around the rejection of the declared value by customs authorities and the subsequent enhancement of value based on a quotation obtained from a different supplier. The key points are: The original authority rejected the declared value and determined the value based on a quotation from another supplier, which was accepted by the importer. However, the Tribunal held that a proforma invoice or quotation cannot constitute a valid basis for enhancing the value of imported goods, as per the precedent set in the Sahara Enterprises case. The transaction value accepted by another importer in a different case cannot be the basis for valuation in the present case, where there is no such consent from the importer. Transaction value is a function of price, but there was no evidence of any flow back or additional payment by the importer over the declared transaction value. The Revenue failed to prove its case, and the impugned order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
