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 that royalty and technical fees paid by appellant to foreign supplier were not includible in transaction value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR 2007. While analyzing the technical assistance agreement, tribunal found only 9% of final product value came from imports. The agreement primarily covered technical personnel deployment for obtaining product approvals from Company H, with no direct connection to imported raw materials. Following precedents in Company B and Company BB cases, CESTAT held that absent clear nexus between royalty payments and imported goods as condition of sale, such payments cannot be added to transaction value. Differential customs duty demand set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT ruled that royalty and technical fees paid by appellant to foreign supplier were not includible in transaction value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR 2007. While analyzing the technical assistance agreement, tribunal found only 9% of final product value came from imports. The agreement primarily covered technical personnel deployment for obtaining product approvals from Company H, with no direct connection to imported raw materials. Following precedents in Company B and Company BB cases, CESTAT held that absent clear nexus between royalty payments and imported goods as condition of sale, such payments cannot be added to transaction value. Differential customs duty demand set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.