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" ?
CESTAT ruled that sale of capital goods within a 100% EOU to an overseas buyer without physical removal does not constitute deemed debonding requiring customs duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership transfer alone doesn't trigger duty liability - physical removal is the taxable event for warehoused goods. Since no physical movement occurred outside the EOU premises and no explicit deeming provision exists for treating sale as removal, no duty was payable. Additionally, proper verification by Central Excise authorities during EOU scheme exit precluded invocation of extended limitation period or penalties. The Tribunal set aside the demand, holding that mere transfer of ownership without actual removal cannot attract customs duty liability under existing legal framework.
CESTAT ruled that sale of capital goods within a 100% EOU to an overseas buyer without physical removal does not constitute deemed debonding requiring customs duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership transfer alone doesn't trigger duty liability - physical removal is the taxable event for warehoused goods. Since no physical movement occurred outside the EOU premises and no explicit deeming provision exists for treating sale as removal, no duty was payable. Additionally, proper verification by Central Excise authorities during EOU scheme exit precluded invocation of extended limitation period or penalties. The Tribunal set aside the demand, holding that mere transfer of ownership without actual removal cannot attract customs duty liability under existing legal framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.