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 classification dispute regarding e-scooter parts imported through multiple Bills of Entry. Court held each Bill of Entry must be assessed independently, rejecting combined assessment approach except for project imports under Regulation 1986. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to classify imported parts as complete e-scooters under GRI 2(a). Importantly, CESTAT determined unconditional exemption under Notification 50/2017-Cus cannot be denied merely for failure to claim it in Bill of Entry. Confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalties under Section 112 were invalidated as misclassification alone doesn't warrant confiscation. Appeal allowed, original order set aside.
CESTAT ruled on classification dispute regarding e-scooter parts imported through multiple Bills of Entry. Court held each Bill of Entry must be assessed independently, rejecting combined assessment approach except for project imports under Regulation 1986. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to classify imported parts as complete e-scooters under GRI 2(a). Importantly, CESTAT determined unconditional exemption under Notification 50/2017-Cus cannot be denied merely for failure to claim it in Bill of Entry. Confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalties under Section 112 were invalidated as misclassification alone doesn't warrant confiscation. Appeal allowed, original order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.