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 allowed appellant's appeal regarding under-valuation of imported silk fabrics from China. Revenue rejected transaction value under Rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules, relying on contemporaneous imports by other importers and director's statement under Section 108 Customs Act. CESTAT held Revenue failed to discharge burden of proving under-valuation with cogent evidence. Department could not establish identical goods comparison as documents lacked specifications regarding grammage, grade, and quality of weave. Director's statement inadmissible without following Section 138B procedure. Transaction value rejection unjustified; re-determination under Rule 5 unnecessary. Redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. Commissioner's order dated 06.02.2009 set aside.
CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding under-valuation of imported silk fabrics from China. Revenue rejected transaction value under Rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules, relying on contemporaneous imports by other importers and director's statement under Section 108 Customs Act. CESTAT held Revenue failed to discharge burden of proving under-valuation with cogent evidence. Department could not establish identical goods comparison as documents lacked specifications regarding grammage, grade, and quality of weave. Director's statement inadmissible without following Section 138B procedure. Transaction value rejection unjustified; re-determination under Rule 5 unnecessary. Redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. Commissioner's order dated 06.02.2009 set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
