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 held that the Petitioner was entitled to claim duty drawback despite the absence of explicit documentary evidence of duty payment on invoices by the supplier (DFCL). Section 26A and related provisions support refund of import duty when duty is paid and passed on to the buyer. The Court found no legal requirement for customs duty to be separately indicated in tax invoices governed by GST law. The declarations by DFCL confirmed that customs duty was included in the price charged to the Petitioner, establishing that the duty burden was borne by the Petitioner. The authorities erred in disregarding the presumption under Section 24D and the supplier's declaration. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders and directed the Respondents to sanction the Petitioner's drawback claims at the brand rate under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules, 2017, allowing the petition.
The HC held that the Petitioner was entitled to claim duty drawback despite the absence of explicit documentary evidence of duty payment on invoices by the supplier (DFCL). Section 26A and related provisions support refund of import duty when duty is paid and passed on to the buyer. The Court found no legal requirement for customs duty to be separately indicated in tax invoices governed by GST law. The declarations by DFCL confirmed that customs duty was included in the price charged to the Petitioner, establishing that the duty burden was borne by the Petitioner. The authorities erred in disregarding the presumption under Section 24D and the supplier's declaration. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders and directed the Respondents to sanction the Petitioner's drawback claims at the brand rate under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules, 2017, allowing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.