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 held that the re-determination of value for imported goods intended for re-export was unjustified. The tribunal found that both original and appellate authorities failed to properly apply the statutory framework governing customs clearance procedures. The adjudicating authorities erroneously applied Section 47 of Customs Act to warehoused goods, disregarding that once goods are warehoused, Section 68 becomes the operative provision for clearance. The tribunal identified a systemic failure in customs assessment procedures, noting that the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and Section 14 of Customs Act were improperly applied to goods not intended for home consumption. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that the re-determination of value for imported goods intended for re-export was unjustified. The tribunal found that both original and appellate authorities failed to properly apply the statutory framework governing customs clearance procedures. The adjudicating authorities erroneously applied Section 47 of Customs Act to warehoused goods, disregarding that once goods are warehoused, Section 68 becomes the operative provision for clearance. The tribunal identified a systemic failure in customs assessment procedures, noting that the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and Section 14 of Customs Act were improperly applied to goods not intended for home consumption. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.