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 the Customs Commissioner lacked authority to re-determine the FOB value of export goods under the Customs Act, 1962. While duty liability is based on the assessable value determined under section 14, export incentives such as Drawback and DEPB are calculated on the declared FOB transaction value agreed between exporter and overseas buyer. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order, which sought to recover export benefits, confiscate goods, and impose penalties based on a re-determined FOB value, was without legal sanction. Market surveys and investigations by the DRI cannot alter the contractually agreed FOB value. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal allowed, affirming that only the declared transaction value governs export incentives and related obligations.
The CESTAT held that the Customs Commissioner lacked authority to re-determine the FOB value of export goods under the Customs Act, 1962. While duty liability is based on the assessable value determined under section 14, export incentives such as Drawback and DEPB are calculated on the declared FOB transaction value agreed between exporter and overseas buyer. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order, which sought to recover export benefits, confiscate goods, and impose penalties based on a re-determined FOB value, was without legal sanction. Market surveys and investigations by the DRI cannot alter the contractually agreed FOB value. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal allowed, affirming that only the declared transaction value governs export incentives and related obligations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.