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 by remand in customs classification dispute. Appellant imported goods classified under tariff item 8501 6410, seeking exemption under N/N. 12/2012-Central Excise for non-conventional energy devices. Customs authorities reclassified goods under residuary category 8502 3990 and denied exemption benefit, imposing penalties under sections 111 and 112 of Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT held that neither notification nor statute excluded goods under tariff items 8501 or 8502 from exemption eligibility. Since imported goods were admittedly not internal combustion piston engines, authorities failed to examine whether goods qualified as non-conventional energy devices or systems under the notification. Due to deficient adjudication lacking proper determination of goods' characteristics for exemption coverage, CESTAT set aside impugned order and remanded matter to original authority for fresh decision after hearing appellant.
CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal by remand in customs classification dispute. Appellant imported goods classified under tariff item 8501 6410, seeking exemption under N/N. 12/2012-Central Excise for non-conventional energy devices. Customs authorities reclassified goods under residuary category 8502 3990 and denied exemption benefit, imposing penalties under sections 111 and 112 of Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT held that neither notification nor statute excluded goods under tariff items 8501 or 8502 from exemption eligibility. Since imported goods were admittedly not internal combustion piston engines, authorities failed to examine whether goods qualified as non-conventional energy devices or systems under the notification. Due to deficient adjudication lacking proper determination of goods' characteristics for exemption coverage, CESTAT set aside impugned order and remanded matter to original authority for fresh decision after hearing appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.