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" ?
This case deals with the valuation of 'rough diamonds' imported into India and the subsequent discrepancy between the declared value and the reassessed value by customs authorities. The key points are: Customs authorities confiscated the goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaration of particulars in the bill of entry. The appellate authority enhanced the confiscation to 'absolute' confiscation without prior notice, which was challenged as violating natural justice. The court held that absence of prior notice is not required when the appellate authority is only enhancing the gravity of confiscation. The proposal for reversal of redemption of confiscated goods served as notice of potential outcome. Absolute confiscation was set aside as it could lead to 'conflict diamonds' entering the domestic market, contrary to India's commitment to ban their trade. The mismatch in the certificate alone is not a ground for absolute confiscation. The court remanded the case for re-determination of value as per statutory procedure, with only the misdeclared portion liable for confiscation subject to redemption, and the rest eligible for clearance.
This case deals with the valuation of 'rough diamonds' imported into India and the subsequent discrepancy between the declared value and the reassessed value by customs authorities. The key points are: Customs authorities confiscated the goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaration of particulars in the bill of entry. The appellate authority enhanced the confiscation to 'absolute' confiscation without prior notice, which was challenged as violating natural justice. The court held that absence of prior notice is not required when the appellate authority is only enhancing the gravity of confiscation. The proposal for reversal of redemption of confiscated goods served as notice of potential outcome. Absolute confiscation was set aside as it could lead to 'conflict diamonds' entering the domestic market, contrary to India's commitment to ban their trade. The mismatch in the certificate alone is not a ground for absolute confiscation. The court remanded the case for re-determination of value as per statutory procedure, with only the misdeclared portion liable for confiscation subject to redemption, and the rest eligible for clearance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
