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 set aside and remanded a case involving misdeclaration of imported goods where excess items (one headstock and 12 drums) were discovered that weren't covered by the appellant's original EPCG license. The Tribunal noted that the appellant subsequently obtained a license covering the excess goods and produced an EODC dated 09.01.2024 evidencing fulfillment of export obligations. While acknowledging the contravention of Customs Act 1962 through incorrect declarations, CESTAT emphasized that the Original Authority failed to verify and consider the subsequent license. Following Atul Commodities precedent, the Tribunal directed de novo adjudication to properly verify the validity of the subsequent EPCG license and EODC certificate.
CESTAT set aside and remanded a case involving misdeclaration of imported goods where excess items (one headstock and 12 drums) were discovered that weren't covered by the appellant's original EPCG license. The Tribunal noted that the appellant subsequently obtained a license covering the excess goods and produced an EODC dated 09.01.2024 evidencing fulfillment of export obligations. While acknowledging the contravention of Customs Act 1962 through incorrect declarations, CESTAT emphasized that the Original Authority failed to verify and consider the subsequent license. Following Atul Commodities precedent, the Tribunal directed de novo adjudication to properly verify the validity of the subsequent EPCG license and EODC certificate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
