Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
The AT upheld the adjudication order regarding contravention of Section 5 of FEMA read with Rule 4 of FEMA (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000, for remitting royalty to overseas parties exceeding permissible limit of 5% on local sales. The respondents had filed CST returns and respective State Level Sales Tax Returns disclosing actual sale price for taxation purpose, duly considered by the adjudicating authority. The AT held that sale price only relates to consideration for transferring property in goods without abatement except as provided, rejecting the appellant's reliance on a case pertaining to calculation of net income and not net sale price. The AT was not convinced by the appellant's submissions in view of its observations.
The AT upheld the adjudication order regarding contravention of Section 5 of FEMA read with Rule 4 of FEMA (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000, for remitting royalty to overseas parties exceeding permissible limit of 5% on local sales. The respondents had filed CST returns and respective State Level Sales Tax Returns disclosing actual sale price for taxation purpose, duly considered by the adjudicating authority. The AT held that sale price only relates to consideration for transferring property in goods without abatement except as provided, rejecting the appellant's reliance on a case pertaining to calculation of net income and not net sale price. The AT was not convinced by the appellant's submissions in view of its observations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.