Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT ruled against inclusion of 4% running royalty in transaction value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Tribunal found that royalty payments were not directly related to imported goods, as they were calculated on net sales value of manufactured products. The goods were not procured from the group company, and no conditions mandated royalty payment for sale. The Explanation to Rule 10(1)(c) requires royalty to be paid for a process applied to imported goods, which was not applicable here. Since royalty was neither paid nor payable specifically for imported goods, and no sale conditions existed, CESTAT held its addition to import value was incorrect. Appeal allowed with order setting aside Commissioner's decision.
CESTAT ruled against inclusion of 4% running royalty in transaction value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Tribunal found that royalty payments were not directly related to imported goods, as they were calculated on net sales value of manufactured products. The goods were not procured from the group company, and no conditions mandated royalty payment for sale. The Explanation to Rule 10(1)(c) requires royalty to be paid for a process applied to imported goods, which was not applicable here. Since royalty was neither paid nor payable specifically for imported goods, and no sale conditions existed, CESTAT held its addition to import value was incorrect. Appeal allowed with order setting aside Commissioner's decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
