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 resolved a customs valuation dispute involving mis-declaration of imported goods. The tribunal determined that filing an appeal constitutes a protest against previously consented value. Referencing precedent cases, the tribunal held that variations in weight for unit-based assessable goods do not necessitate changes to transaction value. Specifically, for specialized industrial components sold by units rather than weight, excess weight discovered during physical verification does not invalidate the original invoice value. With no evidence of excess remittance beyond invoice value, the tribunal accepted the declared transaction value and quantity for customs duty assessment, ultimately allowing the appeal.
CESTAT resolved a customs valuation dispute involving mis-declaration of imported goods. The tribunal determined that filing an appeal constitutes a protest against previously consented value. Referencing precedent cases, the tribunal held that variations in weight for unit-based assessable goods do not necessitate changes to transaction value. Specifically, for specialized industrial components sold by units rather than weight, excess weight discovered during physical verification does not invalidate the original invoice value. With no evidence of excess remittance beyond invoice value, the tribunal accepted the declared transaction value and quantity for customs duty assessment, ultimately allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.