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 dispute involving anti-dumping duty on imported goods manufactured in China and exported via Singapore. The tribunal upheld the DRI's jurisdiction to issue show cause notice, rejecting appellant's procedural challenge. Despite minor technical errors in the notice, the court found no prejudice to the appellant. The tribunal confirmed suppression of facts, affirmed the imposition of confiscation and redemption fine, and ruled that goods released on bond are legally equivalent to physical goods. The appeal was ultimately rejected, with the lower authority's order fully sustained based on reasonable legal interpretation of customs regulations.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs dispute involving anti-dumping duty on imported goods manufactured in China and exported via Singapore. The tribunal upheld the DRI's jurisdiction to issue show cause notice, rejecting appellant's procedural challenge. Despite minor technical errors in the notice, the court found no prejudice to the appellant. The tribunal confirmed suppression of facts, affirmed the imposition of confiscation and redemption fine, and ruled that goods released on bond are legally equivalent to physical goods. The appeal was ultimately rejected, with the lower authority's order fully sustained based on reasonable legal interpretation of customs regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.