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 held that Petroleum Jelly Aloe Vera and Petroleum Jelly Baby are correctly classified under Tariff Item 3304 9990 as cosmetics, not under Tariff Item 2712 10 90 for petroleum jelly. The tribunal relied on its previous ruling in the appellant's own case, finding these products are exclusively meant for skin care. No new facts or contrary judicial orders were presented by the Revenue to challenge the earlier classification. Consequently, the appellant's classification was upheld, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT held that Petroleum Jelly Aloe Vera and Petroleum Jelly Baby are correctly classified under Tariff Item 3304 9990 as cosmetics, not under Tariff Item 2712 10 90 for petroleum jelly. The tribunal relied on its previous ruling in the appellant's own case, finding these products are exclusively meant for skin care. No new facts or contrary judicial orders were presented by the Revenue to challenge the earlier classification. Consequently, the appellant's classification was upheld, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.