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 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.