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 allowed the appellant's appeal, holding the imported aluminium formwork structure with accessories classifiable under CTH 7610 90 10 and entitled to the exemption at Sl. No. 610 of N/N. 152/2009 (as amended), on grounds that the appellant had self-assessed under the relevant tariff and IGST notification and that the Department had not validly challenged the appellant's assessment prior to issuing the demand. The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate decision, set aside the demand for differential customs duty and declined to restore the duty confirmed in the impugned order; the appellate authority's dropping of penalty was left undisturbed. Appeal disposed.
CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding the imported aluminium formwork structure with accessories classifiable under CTH 7610 90 10 and entitled to the exemption at Sl. No. 610 of N/N. 152/2009 (as amended), on grounds that the appellant had self-assessed under the relevant tariff and IGST notification and that the Department had not validly challenged the appellant's assessment prior to issuing the demand. The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate decision, set aside the demand for differential customs duty and declined to restore the duty confirmed in the impugned order; the appellate authority's dropping of penalty was left undisturbed. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.