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" ?
HC ruled that gold bangles worn by a passenger returning to India do not constitute "baggage" under the Customs Act 1962 and Baggage Rules 2016. The court determined that the Rule's provision regarding articles "carried on the person" exceeds the scope of the parent Act and is ultra vires. The Parliament consciously excluded worn jewelry from customs provisions, and until legislative amendment, officers cannot detain passengers' worn gold under Baggage Rules. The court ordered release of petitioner's 10 bangles within 7 days, finding no concealment as they were openly worn. The ruling emphasized that delegated legislation cannot exceed parent Act's scope and must respect fundamental rights and customs.
HC ruled that gold bangles worn by a passenger returning to India do not constitute "baggage" under the Customs Act 1962 and Baggage Rules 2016. The court determined that the Rule's provision regarding articles "carried on the person" exceeds the scope of the parent Act and is ultra vires. The Parliament consciously excluded worn jewelry from customs provisions, and until legislative amendment, officers cannot detain passengers' worn gold under Baggage Rules. The court ordered release of petitioner's 10 bangles within 7 days, finding no concealment as they were openly worn. The ruling emphasized that delegated legislation cannot exceed parent Act's scope and must respect fundamental rights and customs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
