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" ?
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging DGTR's final findings as premature. The Court held that final findings are not binding on the Central Government and no anti-dumping duty notification had been issued. Petitioners were advised to make representations to DGTR regarding non-consideration of submissions and were informed that appellate remedies under Section 9C of Customs Tariff Act would be available before CESTAT after notification. The Court declined to interfere with the findings and rejected claims of differential treatment at this stage, effectively leaving the Petitioners with procedural alternatives to challenge the potential duty imposition.
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging DGTR's final findings as premature. The Court held that final findings are not binding on the Central Government and no anti-dumping duty notification had been issued. Petitioners were advised to make representations to DGTR regarding non-consideration of submissions and were informed that appellate remedies under Section 9C of Customs Tariff Act would be available before CESTAT after notification. The Court declined to interfere with the findings and rejected claims of differential treatment at this stage, effectively leaving the Petitioners with procedural alternatives to challenge the potential duty imposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
