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 adjudicated a customs valuation dispute, finding the re-assessment of imported goods' value unlawful. The tribunal determined that the enhancement of value by 13% "on account of SVB loading" lacks legal basis, as no such provision exists in the Customs Act or valuation rules. The assessment was conducted without recording reasons for transaction value rejection and without following prescribed valuation rules sequentially. The tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer's re-assessment and the Commissioner (Appeals)' order were procedurally and substantively incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, effectively nullifying the unauthorized value enhancement.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs valuation dispute, finding the re-assessment of imported goods' value unlawful. The tribunal determined that the enhancement of value by 13% "on account of SVB loading" lacks legal basis, as no such provision exists in the Customs Act or valuation rules. The assessment was conducted without recording reasons for transaction value rejection and without following prescribed valuation rules sequentially. The tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer's re-assessment and the Commissioner (Appeals)' order were procedurally and substantively incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, effectively nullifying the unauthorized value enhancement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
