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 complex customs valuation dispute involving imported machinery under EPCG scheme. The tribunal found manipulation of documents, suppression of correct payment details, and willful misstatement by the importer. The key findings include: (1) extended period under Section 28(4) was justified due to deliberate concealment, (2) EPCG license benefits could be challenged despite non-cancellation by DGFT, and (3) the importer failed to discharge burden of proof regarding declared value. The tribunal ordered duty recalculation, allowed partial notification benefits, set aside goods confiscation, and maintained penalties against the company and its employee, emphasizing the need to deter statutory violations.
CESTAT adjudicated a complex customs valuation dispute involving imported machinery under EPCG scheme. The tribunal found manipulation of documents, suppression of correct payment details, and willful misstatement by the importer. The key findings include: (1) extended period under Section 28(4) was justified due to deliberate concealment, (2) EPCG license benefits could be challenged despite non-cancellation by DGFT, and (3) the importer failed to discharge burden of proof regarding declared value. The tribunal ordered duty recalculation, allowed partial notification benefits, set aside goods confiscation, and maintained penalties against the company and its employee, emphasizing the need to deter statutory violations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
