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" ?
CESTAT dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to comply with conditional exemption Notification No.83/90-Cus: no bond was executed, the imported goods were not used within six months, and the end-use certificate was produced only after more than two years without obtaining the requisite extension from the Assistant Commissioner. The Technical Member's finding of non-compliance and consequent denial of the duty-free benefit was affirmed as legally correct; the Judicial Member's view that substantial compliance entitled the appellant to relief was rejected. A reference to the President for a third Member was recorded, and the majority order upholding denial of exemption and dismissing the appeal was pronounced.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to comply with conditional exemption Notification No.83/90-Cus: no bond was executed, the imported goods were not used within six months, and the end-use certificate was produced only after more than two years without obtaining the requisite extension from the Assistant Commissioner. The Technical Member's finding of non-compliance and consequent denial of the duty-free benefit was affirmed as legally correct; the Judicial Member's view that substantial compliance entitled the appellant to relief was rejected. A reference to the President for a third Member was recorded, and the majority order upholding denial of exemption and dismissing the appeal was pronounced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.