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 partially allowed the appellant's customs appeal regarding eligibility for exemption under Notifications 11/1997, 23/1998, and 20/1999. The Tribunal held that appellant's defibrillators, primarily for external use, did not qualify for exemption restricted to internal use devices, following Supreme Court precedent. The appellant committed mis-declaration and suppression by claiming internal use despite knowing exemption denial, justifying duty demand, interest, and penalty for 1997-99 imports under extended limitation period. However, 2002 import demands were time-barred under normal limitation. Penalty under Section 112(a) against the General Manager was set aside due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in suppression.
CESTAT partially allowed the appellant's customs appeal regarding eligibility for exemption under Notifications 11/1997, 23/1998, and 20/1999. The Tribunal held that appellant's defibrillators, primarily for external use, did not qualify for exemption restricted to internal use devices, following Supreme Court precedent. The appellant committed mis-declaration and suppression by claiming internal use despite knowing exemption denial, justifying duty demand, interest, and penalty for 1997-99 imports under extended limitation period. However, 2002 import demands were time-barred under normal limitation. Penalty under Section 112(a) against the General Manager was set aside due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in suppression.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.