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 dismissed appellant's claim for exemption benefit under Notification 12/2012-CE (S.No. 332A) for additional customs duty on imported goods. The tribunal held that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted per Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Company, with doubts resolved favoring revenue. Appellant failed to satisfy condition requiring goods be used within factory of manufacture or fulfill alternative procedural requirements under condition 2. While rectification applications cannot re-adjudicate substantive issues, tribunal found final order's failure to address S.No. 332A claim constituted mistake apparent on record. Application disposed by substituting relevant paragraph in final order, confirming exemption unavailable to appellant for imported goods not meeting notification conditions.
CESTAT dismissed appellant's claim for exemption benefit under Notification 12/2012-CE (S.No. 332A) for additional customs duty on imported goods. The tribunal held that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted per Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Company, with doubts resolved favoring revenue. Appellant failed to satisfy condition requiring goods be used within factory of manufacture or fulfill alternative procedural requirements under condition 2. While rectification applications cannot re-adjudicate substantive issues, tribunal found final order's failure to address S.No. 332A claim constituted mistake apparent on record. Application disposed by substituting relevant paragraph in final order, confirming exemption unavailable to appellant for imported goods not meeting notification conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.