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 affirmed that the imported de-humidifiers are classifiable under CTI 8509 80 00, not CTI 8479, because Chapter Note 1(f) to Ch.84 excludes goods falling within Ch.85 and Chapter Note 4 to Ch.85 confines the scope of CTH 8509. A demand issued under s.28 was validly invoked, including the extended limitation period, since the importer altered classification without notifying authorities and critical facts were concealed. The goods were held liable to confiscation under s.111(m). The penalty under s.114A on the importer was upheld as conditions for extended limitation and penalty coincide. The penalty proposed against the customs broker was set aside for lack of cogent evidence; the remainder of the adjudicatory order is sustained.
CESTAT affirmed that the imported de-humidifiers are classifiable under CTI 8509 80 00, not CTI 8479, because Chapter Note 1(f) to Ch.84 excludes goods falling within Ch.85 and Chapter Note 4 to Ch.85 confines the scope of CTH 8509. A demand issued under s.28 was validly invoked, including the extended limitation period, since the importer altered classification without notifying authorities and critical facts were concealed. The goods were held liable to confiscation under s.111(m). The penalty under s.114A on the importer was upheld as conditions for extended limitation and penalty coincide. The penalty proposed against the customs broker was set aside for lack of cogent evidence; the remainder of the adjudicatory order is sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.