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" ?
HC held that Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute customs duty under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, but rather functions as a security deposit as clarified in Circular No.5/2016-Customs. EDD was collected to secure potential customs duty liability due to alleged under-declaration concerns. The limitation period prescribed under Section 27 for customs duty refund claims is not applicable to EDD refunds. The court rejected respondent's stance that refund application was time-barred, noting that EDD remained distinct from duty determined by Special Valuation Branch. The impugned order's reliance on limitation period was found legally untenable, leading to petition's allowance.
HC held that Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute customs duty under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, but rather functions as a security deposit as clarified in Circular No.5/2016-Customs. EDD was collected to secure potential customs duty liability due to alleged under-declaration concerns. The limitation period prescribed under Section 27 for customs duty refund claims is not applicable to EDD refunds. The court rejected respondent's stance that refund application was time-barred, noting that EDD remained distinct from duty determined by Special Valuation Branch. The impugned order's reliance on limitation period was found legally untenable, leading to petition's allowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
