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 on the jurisdictional scope of baggage-related customs appeals. The tribunal determined that goods recovered from a passenger's person cannot be automatically presumed as "baggage" under the Customs Act, 1962. The onus of proof remains with the customs department to establish the nature of goods intercepted during domestic transit. The tribunal maintained its appellate jurisdiction for such cases, rejecting automatic application of Baggage Rules, 2016 to domestic airport interceptions. Consequently, the appeal was directed to be filed before the appropriate appellate forum, with a nuanced interpretation emphasizing that imported consumer goods found domestically cannot be presumptively classified as smuggled items.
CESTAT ruled on the jurisdictional scope of baggage-related customs appeals. The tribunal determined that goods recovered from a passenger's person cannot be automatically presumed as "baggage" under the Customs Act, 1962. The onus of proof remains with the customs department to establish the nature of goods intercepted during domestic transit. The tribunal maintained its appellate jurisdiction for such cases, rejecting automatic application of Baggage Rules, 2016 to domestic airport interceptions. Consequently, the appeal was directed to be filed before the appropriate appellate forum, with a nuanced interpretation emphasizing that imported consumer goods found domestically cannot be presumptively classified as smuggled items.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.