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 denied exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus for imported Coke Breeze, upholding that metallurgical coke and coke breeze are distinct products with different characteristics and applications. Following precedent in Company A case, the Tribunal emphasized that coke breeze, being a byproduct of coke manufacture, cannot be equated with metallurgical coke used in blast furnaces. The significant price difference and distinct product characteristics preclude extending the notification benefits meant for metallurgical coke to coke breeze imports. The interpretation of exemption notification was deemed irrelevant given the fundamental product differences. Appeal dismissed, confirming differential treatment for customs duty purposes.
CESTAT denied exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus for imported Coke Breeze, upholding that metallurgical coke and coke breeze are distinct products with different characteristics and applications. Following precedent in Company A case, the Tribunal emphasized that coke breeze, being a byproduct of coke manufacture, cannot be equated with metallurgical coke used in blast furnaces. The significant price difference and distinct product characteristics preclude extending the notification benefits meant for metallurgical coke to coke breeze imports. The interpretation of exemption notification was deemed irrelevant given the fundamental product differences. Appeal dismissed, confirming differential treatment for customs duty purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.