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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
CESTAT allowed appeal challenging customs valuation of imported aluminum ingots between related parties. Revenue rejected declared transaction value based solely on LME prices without establishing higher contemporaneous import prices. CESTAT held transaction value under Section 14 Customs Act cannot be rejected absent evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices. LME prices alone insufficient to prove undervaluation when similar contemporaneous imports existed at comparable prices. SVB conducted detailed examination twice, accepting declared value after scrutinizing invoices and documents. Commissioner (Appeals) mechanically remanded matter without cogent reasons for rejecting assessable value. CESTAT found no evidence of flowback arrangements, royalty payments, or technical fees indicating price manipulation. Order-in-Appeal lacked methodology for alternative valuation determination. Revenue failed to demonstrate undervaluation through contemporaneous market evidence, rendering rejection of declared value legally unsustainable under established customs valuation principles.
CESTAT allowed appeal challenging customs valuation of imported aluminum ingots between related parties. Revenue rejected declared transaction value based solely on LME prices without establishing higher contemporaneous import prices. CESTAT held transaction value under Section 14 Customs Act cannot be rejected absent evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices. LME prices alone insufficient to prove undervaluation when similar contemporaneous imports existed at comparable prices. SVB conducted detailed examination twice, accepting declared value after scrutinizing invoices and documents. Commissioner (Appeals) mechanically remanded matter without cogent reasons for rejecting assessable value. CESTAT found no evidence of flowback arrangements, royalty payments, or technical fees indicating price manipulation. Order-in-Appeal lacked methodology for alternative valuation determination. Revenue failed to demonstrate undervaluation through contemporaneous market evidence, rendering rejection of declared value legally unsustainable under established customs valuation principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
