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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that rejected the refund claim. It was held that the transaction value of the exported goods must be determined in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, based on the Fe content ascertained by the Discharge Port report, which was 58.17%. The adjudicating authority correctly found that the final invoice and amounts remitted corresponded with the contract and the Discharge Port Certificate. Since the appellant did not recover any amount exceeding the transaction value and the Fe content complied with contractual terms, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in overruling the adjudicating authority. The appeal was allowed, affirming the provisional assessment and rejecting the Commissioner (Appeals) order for lacking merit.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that rejected the refund claim. It was held that the transaction value of the exported goods must be determined in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, based on the Fe content ascertained by the Discharge Port report, which was 58.17%. The adjudicating authority correctly found that the final invoice and amounts remitted corresponded with the contract and the Discharge Port Certificate. Since the appellant did not recover any amount exceeding the transaction value and the Fe content complied with contractual terms, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in overruling the adjudicating authority. The appeal was allowed, affirming the provisional assessment and rejecting the Commissioner (Appeals) order for lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
