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 held that the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting depreciation on capital goods only until the date of payment of duty, instead of until the date of de-bonding/cessation of 100% EOU status, was unlawful. The Tribunal interpreted the notifications as permitting calculation of customs duty on depreciated value with reference to exchange rate at bill of entry and duty rate prevailing when the undertaking ceases to be an EOU, and that the specific provision allowing depreciation until payment applies only where clearance is authorized under Development Commissioner permission in normal debonding. The Commissioner (Appeals) order is set aside; the appeal is allowed and remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for recalculation of duty accordingly.
CESTAT held that the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting depreciation on capital goods only until the date of payment of duty, instead of until the date of de-bonding/cessation of 100% EOU status, was unlawful. The Tribunal interpreted the notifications as permitting calculation of customs duty on depreciated value with reference to exchange rate at bill of entry and duty rate prevailing when the undertaking ceases to be an EOU, and that the specific provision allowing depreciation until payment applies only where clearance is authorized under Development Commissioner permission in normal debonding. The Commissioner (Appeals) order is set aside; the appeal is allowed and remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for recalculation of duty accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.