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 High Court held that personal jewellery which is not newly acquired during an overseas trip, but rather has been a used personal effect carried by the passenger, would not be subject to the monetary restrictions and duty requirements u/rs 3 and 4 of the Baggage Rules, 2016. The Court made a distinction between 'personal jewellery' and 'jewellery' per se. Personal jewellery that has been a used personal effect of the passenger would be treated as 'personal effects' and exempt from duty restrictions, as clarified by the Customs Circular No. 72/98. This position would continue to be applicable under the Baggage Rules, 2016, despite the definition of 'personal effects' introduced therein. The Joint Commissioner of Customs misconstrued the scheme and objectives of the 2016 Rules by failing to appreciate this distinction between personal jewellery and newly acquired jewellery. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of confiscation and detention of the petitioner's personal gold ornaments, which were used personal effects and not newly acquired jewellery.
The High Court held that personal jewellery which is not newly acquired during an overseas trip, but rather has been a used personal effect carried by the passenger, would not be subject to the monetary restrictions and duty requirements u/rs 3 and 4 of the Baggage Rules, 2016. The Court made a distinction between 'personal jewellery' and 'jewellery' per se. Personal jewellery that has been a used personal effect of the passenger would be treated as 'personal effects' and exempt from duty restrictions, as clarified by the Customs Circular No. 72/98. This position would continue to be applicable under the Baggage Rules, 2016, despite the definition of 'personal effects' introduced therein. The Joint Commissioner of Customs misconstrued the scheme and objectives of the 2016 Rules by failing to appreciate this distinction between personal jewellery and newly acquired jewellery. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of confiscation and detention of the petitioner's personal gold ornaments, which were used personal effects and not newly acquired jewellery.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
