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 upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for excise duty where sales were on a Freight on Road (FOR) basis, relying on precedent that the place of removal determines valuation. The Tribunal affirmed that only charges up to the point of transfer of ownership are includible, excluding post-transfer expenses borne by the buyer. The extended period of limitation was validly invoked as the appellant deliberately suppressed the freight component to evade duty, a fact uncovered during audit. The Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the appeal, confirming the duty demand and the applicability of extended limitation due to suppression of material facts.
The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for excise duty where sales were on a Freight on Road (FOR) basis, relying on precedent that the place of removal determines valuation. The Tribunal affirmed that only charges up to the point of transfer of ownership are includible, excluding post-transfer expenses borne by the buyer. The extended period of limitation was validly invoked as the appellant deliberately suppressed the freight component to evade duty, a fact uncovered during audit. The Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the appeal, confirming the duty demand and the applicability of extended limitation due to suppression of material facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
