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 exemption dispute involving imported gold jewellery under India-Thailand preferential tariff agreement. The tribunal found that customs authorities failed to discharge their burden of proving the origin of seized jewellery. The presumption under section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 remained rebuttable, and absence of clear findings regarding document authenticity invalidated the original action. The tribunal emphasized adherence to treaty negotiation terms and procedural requirements. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, effectively quashing the customs duty assessment and restoring the importer's claim for preferential tariff exemption.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs duty exemption dispute involving imported gold jewellery under India-Thailand preferential tariff agreement. The tribunal found that customs authorities failed to discharge their burden of proving the origin of seized jewellery. The presumption under section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 remained rebuttable, and absence of clear findings regarding document authenticity invalidated the original action. The tribunal emphasized adherence to treaty negotiation terms and procedural requirements. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, effectively quashing the customs duty assessment and restoring the importer's claim for preferential tariff exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.