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 disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration of the respondent's grounds against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 26.02.2019, which upheld the inclusion of 1% handling charges in the assessable value for customs duty under a CIF contract. The respondent was granted liberty to file an appeal challenging that order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reassess the refund claim for excess customs duty paid, particularly regarding the 1% handling charges paid by self-assessment, in light of applicable Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal's earlier order was set aside as it lacked the benefit of the subsequent Adjudicating Authority's order. The remand ensures adherence to principles of fair adjudication and proper examination of documentary evidence before determining the refund entitlement.
The HC disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration of the respondent's grounds against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 26.02.2019, which upheld the inclusion of 1% handling charges in the assessable value for customs duty under a CIF contract. The respondent was granted liberty to file an appeal challenging that order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reassess the refund claim for excess customs duty paid, particularly regarding the 1% handling charges paid by self-assessment, in light of applicable Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal's earlier order was set aside as it lacked the benefit of the subsequent Adjudicating Authority's order. The remand ensures adherence to principles of fair adjudication and proper examination of documentary evidence before determining the refund entitlement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
