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 royalty payments to a foreign entity for technology and trademark use should not be included in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c). The tribunal found that the royalty was calculated based on CKD kit imports and was independent of the sale conditions. The First Appellate Authority's order was set aside due to lack of reasoned analysis, violating principles of natural justice. The royalty payment was deemed unrelated to the import transaction, thus not qualifying for inclusion in the dutiable value. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, rejecting the attempt to enhance the customs duty assessment.
CESTAT held that royalty payments to a foreign entity for technology and trademark use should not be included in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c). The tribunal found that the royalty was calculated based on CKD kit imports and was independent of the sale conditions. The First Appellate Authority's order was set aside due to lack of reasoned analysis, violating principles of natural justice. The royalty payment was deemed unrelated to the import transaction, thus not qualifying for inclusion in the dutiable value. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, rejecting the attempt to enhance the customs duty assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.