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 on short payment of excise duty involving related parties under Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act. Company directors (siblings) held 99% shares and made clearances to distributor firm owned by their parents, establishing related party relationship. Differential pricing pattern revealed mutual interest, with distributor receiving goods at lower prices. Tribunal held transaction value must be based on distributor's selling price per Rule 9 of CEVR 2000. Interest payment required on differential duty, though penalty was not imposed as department filed no cross-objection. Established principle prevents appellant from being placed in worse position upon appeal. Appeal rejected, affirming duty valuation and interest payment requirements.
CESTAT ruled on short payment of excise duty involving related parties under Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act. Company directors (siblings) held 99% shares and made clearances to distributor firm owned by their parents, establishing related party relationship. Differential pricing pattern revealed mutual interest, with distributor receiving goods at lower prices. Tribunal held transaction value must be based on distributor's selling price per Rule 9 of CEVR 2000. Interest payment required on differential duty, though penalty was not imposed as department filed no cross-objection. Established principle prevents appellant from being placed in worse position upon appeal. Appeal rejected, affirming duty valuation and interest payment requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.