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" ?
The CESTAT held that confiscation of export goods, duly cleared with appropriate customs duties and not prohibited for export, was unjustified under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings aimed solely to deny benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), without allegations of non-export, substandard quality, or undervaluation. The Tribunal clarified that the ITC (HS) Code used in FTP is a directory and not a statutory basis for customs assessment or penalty. The reassessment of ITC (HS) Codes in shipping bills lacked legal authority, rendering the denial of MEIS benefits invalid. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the appellant's entitlement to export promotion benefits.
The CESTAT held that confiscation of export goods, duly cleared with appropriate customs duties and not prohibited for export, was unjustified under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings aimed solely to deny benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), without allegations of non-export, substandard quality, or undervaluation. The Tribunal clarified that the ITC (HS) Code used in FTP is a directory and not a statutory basis for customs assessment or penalty. The reassessment of ITC (HS) Codes in shipping bills lacked legal authority, rendering the denial of MEIS benefits invalid. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the appellant's entitlement to export promotion benefits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.