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 HC dismissed the writ petitions challenging the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty under Notification No.43/2016-Customs (ADD), finding no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions as the respondents and the Appellate Tribunal were outside its territorial domain. The Court held that statutory appeals against the Appellate Tribunal's orders lie exclusively before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, even if entertained as civil appeals, the petitions would fail due to the embargo under Section 130(1) prohibiting interference with matters concerning customs duty rates or valuation. The Court upheld the validity of the levy continuation by the Designated Authority despite an 11-day interim gap between notifications, ruling it lawful and consistent with constitutional requirements. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and on merits.
The HC dismissed the writ petitions challenging the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty under Notification No.43/2016-Customs (ADD), finding no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions as the respondents and the Appellate Tribunal were outside its territorial domain. The Court held that statutory appeals against the Appellate Tribunal's orders lie exclusively before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, even if entertained as civil appeals, the petitions would fail due to the embargo under Section 130(1) prohibiting interference with matters concerning customs duty rates or valuation. The Court upheld the validity of the levy continuation by the Designated Authority despite an 11-day interim gap between notifications, ruling it lawful and consistent with constitutional requirements. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
