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 case involving misdeclaration of an imported second-hand vehicle as new, resulting in confiscation. The tribunal affirmed the appellant's ownership based on vehicle registration and determined mandatory customs duty liability under Section 125(2). The court conclusively held that the appellant, as the vehicle's owner, cannot escape paying differential duty and charges upon redemption. The Commissioner(Appeals)'s order for de novo adjudication was upheld, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed, establishing the inescapable duty payment obligation regardless of initial misdeclaration circumstances.
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving misdeclaration of an imported second-hand vehicle as new, resulting in confiscation. The tribunal affirmed the appellant's ownership based on vehicle registration and determined mandatory customs duty liability under Section 125(2). The court conclusively held that the appellant, as the vehicle's owner, cannot escape paying differential duty and charges upon redemption. The Commissioner(Appeals)'s order for de novo adjudication was upheld, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed, establishing the inescapable duty payment obligation regardless of initial misdeclaration circumstances.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.