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 duty valuation dispute concerning design and drawing charges and royalty payments. The tribunal determined that design and drawing charges for customer-specific textile machines and royalty payments unrelated to imported goods should not be included in the transaction value. The key legal finding was that neither Section 14 of the Customs Act nor Valuation Rules mandate inclusion of design costs or royalties that do not directly constitute a condition of sale. The tribunal emphasized that the design charges were for customized products and the royalty payments were not contingent on specific import transactions. Consequently, these charges could not be incorporated into the assessable value for customs duty calculation. The appeal was allowed, excluding design and drawing charges and royalty from the transaction value.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs duty valuation dispute concerning design and drawing charges and royalty payments. The tribunal determined that design and drawing charges for customer-specific textile machines and royalty payments unrelated to imported goods should not be included in the transaction value. The key legal finding was that neither Section 14 of the Customs Act nor Valuation Rules mandate inclusion of design costs or royalties that do not directly constitute a condition of sale. The tribunal emphasized that the design charges were for customized products and the royalty payments were not contingent on specific import transactions. Consequently, these charges could not be incorporated into the assessable value for customs duty calculation. The appeal was allowed, excluding design and drawing charges and royalty from the transaction value.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
